HappySqurriel on 17 June 2007
| Gballzack said: I think graphics are a cheap substitute for substance, while they are lovely and add much to the game, they are not a necessity. Everyone wants their console to have the best graphics, and there's no shame in taking pride in that, however when you start using graphics as a measure of a game, then you are a child, simple as that. Graphics didn't give the GC or Xbox better games or better sales than the PS2 so why anyone should think the rules have changed this generation is beyond me. How Sony fans can all of a sudden pretend that graphics suddenly matter this generation when they didn't the last two is perhaps one of the most ironic jokes of gaming history. |
The problem is that graphics are an expensive substitute for substance ...
Since the introduction of gaming press and gaming magazines companies have known that by producing a prettier game with an interesting enough concept for a 500 word article they can (easily) sell enough games to cover the cost of development. Today you will spend $20 Million or more producing a game in order to gain the 250,000 sales that this approach ensures.
