| Fumanchu said: Ok, I've articulated/portrayed my point wrong. Superficial or not - do you deny that they can greatly enhance the enjoyment of a movie or game in question? If so, what's wrong with rewarding the efforts of the people that strive so hard to add to a more immersive experience for the viewer/player? I have no idea why a facet such as graphics, which can either make or break a game or movie should be so easily overlooked. If they were executed badly the critics would have no qualms in taking points off the score. |
@bolded: WUT!?
I've seen this argument a couple of times now, and it's preposterous. The purpose of a review is to give consumers a guide to quality, NOT to serve as a confidence booster for the producer.
Imagine a food critic giving good points to cooks who work long hours. 'The food is disgusting and unhealthy, but Paul in the kitchen puts in double shifts to provide it to you - 3/5'. This is akin to what you're suggesting, Fumanchu.
On Topic:
Graphics in games serves a purpose. The only two means of experiencing Videogames is through sight and hearing, with the focus on sight. So you cannot get away from the fact that visuals are important, and each person will put a different weight to that import. You review the experience, the sum of the parts, and not the parts themselves. So if the graphics of a game put you in another dimension, so to speak, that should count towards the final grade. If, like Bod, it really does not affect your overall perception of the game a single bit, by all means, leave it out.
It's perfectly simple. What was the game to you? What made the game good, and what took away from the experience?
Even movie-critics comment on the visuals, and they can add to or take away from the experience in movies just as well as in videogames.
This is invisible text!
