naznatips said:
You should have read sqrl's post though. A game can have good graphics without focusing on them. Examples: Left 4 Dead, Super Mario Galaxy, Half-Life 2 (and episodes) etc. Good graphics and great graphics aren't the same. IMO the worst offender to the "graphics make the game" curse this year was Bioshock, which butchered their storyline and cut the game short with some relatively poor gameplay mechanics for great graphics. Call of Duty 4 is an offender too, and although I love the game (god knows I've devoted dozens of hours to it online) the single-player is criminally short, clearly due to too much focus on the technical aspects of the game. Heavenly Sword is another example. A 6 hour single-player only game should be butchered by reviewers and gamers alike. That's just ridiculous. |
Personally, I loved Bioshock, and not just for the graphics. I actually thought that area was a little weak (not the best textures, some jaggies, etc), but I fell in love with plasmids and the fighting system at first sight. The story got a bit incoherent for me after a certain death sequence, and the final boss was completely dull and badly thought out, as was the ending. But I found the experience very engaging. The nice art deco style, the unsettling enemies, the innovative plasmid system that makes you develop your own way to play (yes, I know System Shock did it first, but I and many others have never played that game or even heard of it before Bioshock), the upgradeable weapons, the moral dilemma of whether to save or kill the little sisters... and I'll be damned if the Big Daddy isn't the greatest 'boss' introduced to the gaming world in a long, loooong time.
