Rock_on_2008 said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Graphics don't matter(to a gamer that I would respect). There is no limit of how fun and addicting games can become. A game with 2 stick balls battling each other could be better, have a better story, and look better than Killzone 2. If you can't understand what I'm talking about then honestly, you haven't thought long enough about what I'm saying, or it's beyond your ability to comprehend.
Bad games are bad games, but not because they have bad graphics. Good games are good games, but not because they have good graphics. As long as you hold that as the truth then your damage control of "well graphics can make a good experience better" simply doesn't hold water.
Graphics can make a good experience worse also, can they not? Just look at games with overly ambitious graphics like Mass Effect, where popins and load times keep that game from earning the respect it deserves.
This really isn't an argument to me. It's just silly. I'll steer clear. T-wes is dead on, but it's been said so many times, at this point I'm like, "Yeah, and the sky is blue too, so what's new?" |
If graphics do not matter at all. Why not just keep playing Pong, Pac man and Space invaders? |
Or Chess? Or Go?
I do still play those games, and so do millions -- literally millions -- of other people. And I still play CS 1.6, an 11 year old game. I obviously can't speak for Zenfolder, but I think my "anti-graphics-whore" credentials are more than proven.
Heck, I have a PS3, and my favorite games for it thus far are Super Stardust, PixelJunk Monsters and Echochrome, none of which even attempt to push the PS3's hardware to its limits (although Stardust does look nice. Also, Echochrome is fantastic and I strongly recommend it to any PS3 owners here).
