horriblebastard on 10 August 2008
| Sky Render said: I don't see any other question you asked. If you want to know what I think about "more enemies on screen", "bigger environments", "more detailed character models", and so on, I think "overcompensating". The most brilliant games in existence do not use thousands of on-screen visuals; some of them need no more than two paddles and a ball. Adding more and bigger to a game does not improve it; it just makes it more complicated. While I'm certain that many an elitist out there feels that complexity equals quality, this is not the case; intuitiveness equals quality. I would much rather play a game that I can just pick up and enjoy without having to remember a half-million special rules and tricks than to play a game that has thousands-on-thousands battles and zero intuitive gameplay. Screw the likes of Generations of Chaos and Galactic Civilizations. If it's going to be that overly complex, I'd rather pop in Wii Sports, quite frankly. At least I know I'll have fun with that without having to muddle through 60 tutorials just to find out how to complete a single round of the game. |
You didn't answer my question about SMG and stick men, or choosing between two versions of the same game, one with better graphics than the other.
Adding more to a game doesn't improve it? Are you serious? It might not improve every game ever made, but to imply adding more to a game can never make it better is insane.
Your whole argument is basically: -
Better graphics = irrelevant
Adding more to a game = only makes it worse
Both of those things are complete rubbish.
