Graphics = "Great games" -- Does Age play a factor to this thinking?

[Tispower]

HappySqurriel said:

I think that the TNT 2 and Voodoo 3 graphics cards changed everything. Roughly speaking, both of these graphics cards were similar in performance to the Dreamcast and survived for years as the minimum requirements for many of the best PC games ever created.

The reason I believe this is that most modern games on the PC, PS3 and XBox 360 are prettier versions of these games; the ammount of actual improvement in physics, AI and gameplay has been minimal over the past 8 years even though processing power on both the GPU and CPU has grown by over 20 times.

Omg! Out of interest I went to dxdiag, and clicked on the Display tab. Under device name it says NVIDIA RIVE TNT2 Model 64/Model 64 Pro! :P Well it's nice to know that even though this isn't the PC I use to play games, but that it has a ledgendary graphics card!

Anyway, I'd agree with Ledgend and say that as long as the gameplay is there, it definately adds to game. I got C & C (yes the original version, 95, MS-DOS) working on my Dad's ancient laptop,  and although it is still as fun as it ever was. I definately still like playing Generals and RA2. I would say the only reason I enjoy playing it is because it was one of the first games I ever played, considering I was born in 1991. So I would say that with me at least, unless I have fond memories of it, there's no way I'd pick up a game that is pretty awful to todays standards. For instance I never have any intention of playing on NES/SNES or N64, because I don't have any memorable moments of them, I only played the N64, and to me, any game on the NES/SNES is frankly crap. However that's opinion, so don't bash me for saying that :P