bugrimmar said:
hm, i agree. yeah.
hm.. but i also still stick to the idea that reviewers are stuck in a "high definition" mindset. everything has to be better looking, better sounding, sharper, etc. than before because they've come to expect games to go hand in hand with technology. also, i still have to stick with the idea about what truly outstanding game is, but i gotta give you credit for making me see a modification in my theory.
sure, return of the king is a great movie. but it isn't one of the best movies ever made, because it's "incomplete" by itself. the lord of the rings trilogy, however, is outstanding.
so based on that reasoning, mgs4, by itself, is largely "incomplete". but the metal gear series is, as a whole, outstanding.
but lone games by themselves (one game alone) that accomplishes completeness without the need for sequels is what i can call an outstanding "game".
|
I think you're right there but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. Games should be partly judged based on the technology of the day especially as graphics and sound enhance the immersion and experience of a game. If the technology is there I expect developers to put in at least some effort to utilise it. I'm not suggesting that these are the most important factors as obviously gameplay is crucial but again this comes back to reading the content of the review. If graphics/sound are not important to you then as long as the rest of the review fits your idea of a good game then a score lowered by poor graphics shouldn't bother you.
