I know u r being funny, im 29, i play with women (face to face)

Anyway looks matter in everything

that was my point

Which would you rather play Golden Eye or Quantum of Solace?

Half Life or Haze?


Given the choice between Golden Eye... and Golden Eye with modern graphics, at the same price, of course you take Golden Eye with modern graphics...

But at the end of the day, how the game plays is what matters.

Yes, graphics should matter.

I don't think they should, personally. I don't care. I get in fights with Naz all the time because I run all of my PC games at minimum settingss just so I can get 1-2 more FPS.

I'm running a quad core OCed to 3.0 GHz with 2x260GTs running in SLI, by the by, so I'm talking about going from, say, 70 FPS to 72 FPS. I'd likely prefer every game just be reduced to a bunch of square hitboxes.

Naz doesn't?  I thought he was supposed to be a true PC gamer?!

He's a sissy casual imo.

On that point, I've wondered for some time why it's the "hardcore" who seem to care about graphics. I mean, we're supposed to be the elite, right? With sophisticated tastes. So why are we the ones who care about superficial things like graphics?

As a similar example, special effects and CGI in movies are considered the "pulp" fanservice, and rightly so: critics are more concerned with believable characters and well told story, not with superficial issues like how cool the CGI looks, who want "epic" movies a la Spiderman or 300. 

In some ways, the "hardcore" make sense -- I do generally believe they're more concerned than the layman with more complex mechanics, for example. But the graphics? That baffles me. It seems much more reasonable for the masses to be concerned with graphics and "epic" games.

Most Definitely. Why should the efforts of the art department who sweat blood trying to push the boundaries of the hardware capabilities go undermined? Wouldn't it be considered somewhat counter-progressive to ignore their feats?

Yes they should 'Affect' the score but not at the expense of overlooking good gameplay. That's why they each have their own distinct categories to be passed judgement on, which affect the overall score.

Why don't movie critics give extra scores for a movie having awesome special effects? That's where most of the money is spent on those big budget blockbuster movies.

Answer: because CGI/Special effects are a superficial and superfluous concern. Film (and flim critics) have grown up. When will gaming? Will it ever?

Bodhestava, you just have incredibly unique tastes.

I do think that graphics should effect scores, because I feel that reviews should be as technical as possible. That's the only way to truly -- and consistently -- judge how good a game is. Basing your score on fun, for example, isn't a viable way to score games. Fun is too subjective, so reviews would be all over the place.

Instead of graphics, however, I would prefer if it were listed as "visuals". Some games go for a stylish look, and they shouldn't be for it when they're beautiful games. That's my opinion.

It's a small effect, and I find that bad graphics tend to hurt good games more than good graphics help bad ones, but they do help you enjoy the experience more by immersing you more into it, particularly for heavily cinematic/story-based games like RPGs.