RolStoppable said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
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.
|
In most cases halfassed graphics go hand in hand with a lack of polish in other areas, that's why people automatically assume that a game that doesn't look good also doesn't play all that great. So doubts about the quality of this game are justified, after all it wouldn't be the first Wii third party game that ends up falling (clearly) short of expectations.
|
That isn't what you wrote at first. If you meant that, why did you write something that implied you were putting graphics above the other elements?
