theRepublic said:
Bodhesatva said:
Look, Fumanchu, you cannot possibly argue that graphics are not superficial. They are the DEFINITION of superficial: what you see on the surface. That is what superficial means: what you see on the surface. Graphics are superificial.
You're essentially arguing that, since special effects are only in, say, 70% of a movie, it isn't relevant, while graphics are in 90% of a game (not "all the time," as you suggest, as there are start screens, menus and select screens, etc.) it is totally different!
Please. This argument is ridiculous, and your examples (which presumably were intended to argue in your favor) have done nothing but reinforce my position.
It's fine if you care about graphics, just as it's fine if you happen to like pulp fiction like Transformers or 300 or whatever crap Hollywood pumps out. But if we want video games to be taken seriously -- and I do -- the fascination with the superficial needs to end with reviewers. Graphics are, by definition, superficial.
|
Agreed. That is where the change really needs to come from.
Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen until we hit near photorealism. Then they will be forced to focus on something else because games won't be able to look better.
|
did either of you play shadow of the collossus and like it? sotc was fantastic, but im not going to lie: the graphics made it so. the graphics affect the game in basically every way for me. It set the tone early on and it was consistent throughout.
graphics matter, but only when used promote what the game has. sotc is a great example because it had more than just graphics. The concept was interesting, fighting the collossi was fun, and the horse was the best side kick ever (if it can even be called such a lowly name).
my pillars of gaming: kh, naughty dog, insomniac, ssb, gow, ff
i officially boycott boycotts. crap.
