RolStoppable said:
All those games you mentioned came out in 1998 or later. The graphics of the original Goldeneye deserve to be put on a pedestal for many reasons, just like all other aspects of the game. It wasn't just a game with addicting gameplay and multiplayer, it was a new benchmark for console FPS all around, including its graphics. I wonder if this new Goldeneye game is really looking so bad that you already have to do preemptive damage control for the final product. The developers of this title have to live up to high standards and nobody should give them the impression that they can get away with halfassed graphics. Fans of the original game have the right to expect nothing less than the best FPS experience on the Wii. Which, actually, isn't that high of an expectation anyway, given the efforts other developers put into their FPS games so far. |
And that's the notion that I have a problem with. Somehow having "halfassed graphics" (by some silly standard the polygon count matters more than art direction) will netage EVERY OTHER THING that would make this what you want it to be, even if it met those.
EDIT: This matters, because graphics that gamers think are good take resources to make, and those resources would be better spent making the rest of the games good. Nintendo halfassed Mario Kart Wii and NSMBWii, and only the gaming community cared, not the mainstream, which is the group that made the first Goldeneye a hit.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs








