| Game_God said:
Why so defensive, did I offend you? Glad to hear that reading me was funny, at least you had a good laugh & it didn't cost you a penny! Not to patronize you, but I've been working in the 3D modelisation & animation for 15 years now, so I know a bit about what I'm talking about. All you need to have pretty graphics today is money, nothing more! We have tools & enough competent artists in the industry to make pretty games. It doesn't even require particular artistic talent or creativity, I've met my fair share of 3D "artists" with as much artistic talent as a rock. They were good at mimicking reality with the tools they had & it was more than enough to produce great visuals. Game designing on the other hand is quite different, despite having its technical intricacies, you need talent, a good share of it, in order to create, envision something that works as a game. You need to put together gameplay, a visual identity, a musical ambient, an enticing story (when it's the case), undestand the technical limitations & pitfalls of your project & the feasibiilty of it within a budget & time frame. That dear DonFerrari, can't be bought by money. Works the same for music, cinema... touching people is not a matter of money but talent! Graphics are a matter of talent but mostly of money & they are not nor should they be the driving force behind a good game. Gameplay does not exclude great graphics, in fact it should support it, but more & more eyecandy is the target of game producing as Ready at Dawn admited quite sadly, "graphics, story & then gameplay"... It should always be gameplay, replayability, graphics/music, story (if the scope of the game needs it)! You should listen to me, because as you said it yourself: I "hold the absolute truth" ;P I know I will make you laught at least, so all is not lost :P |
