curl-6 said:
Importance is relative; they're not entirely insignificant, I just don't think they're anywhere near as important as gameplay. A game that plays great but has bad graphics is still great, while a game that plays bad but has great graphics is still bad. In my humble opinion, anyway. |
I agree with you, even if our weights on importance vary certainly gameplay is most important than just graphics... I would say our main difference is that I would say a good/great gameplay is completely enhanced by beatifull graphics while you are more like if the graphics are satisfactory then gameplay is all you care... so both of us like mario and uncharted (or some other sony ip) but for you mario>sony 1st and for me the opposite =]
Anyway I don´t spect this game to be bad, but your 1st comment sounded bashfull.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
