By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
RolStoppable said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
RolStoppable said:

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?

I don't want this to end up in discussing semantics.

Our exchange started because you said that Goldeneye was not graphically impressive for its time, so I corrected you (as did somebody else). I am not disputing that the addicting multiplayer and gameplay was the main factor that Goldeneye became the hit it was. All I was taking issue with was your statement that Goldeneye didn't have top notch graphics for its time, so nobody should expect this remake to have great graphics or complain that it doesn't have them.

The problem is "great graphics" is no longer defined by art direction or how talented the developers are as artists. It's now defined by polygon count, how many flashy effects are in the game, basically things that take more time and money, but don't make the games better (which is why I don't want detailed graphics in this game, to prove that the game will stand on its own without those).



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