Azzanation said:
Or maybe you just dont want to accept it. We are suppose to play video games for fun, thats the whole intention of them. |
Nope. You can't speak for everyone. Not everyone plays videogames for fun, and this has been discussed to death. Some play them for the challenge, others for the experience. In a movie you passively watch what happens. In a video game with a strong story and great visuals you get some or complete control of what happens next. Video games are the only medium that can offer that experience.
If graphics don't matter as much as people say, they should keep gaming on ps2 or earlier consoles. There are many games with great gameplay and I'm sure it's a matter of disovering them (I find it unlikely anyone has played all the good games from the NES-ps2 eras).
Still people want better graphics and better experiences. You can't tell them what to like. And I'm not doing that either. All I'm saying is that I don't agree with the score and I think it's wrong to give a free pass to indies despite their terrible graphics and deduct points from games like Devil's Third which doesn't look that great by today's standards. But if graphics don't matter, why do they matter in one case and not in the other? Should every developer make 16-bit games to avoid criticism?
One thing's for sure. Great graphics don't take away anything from a game. But if you don't like the gameplay, of course there is no point playing a game. If I have the choice, I'll take the complete package over a game with only good gameplay. The experience for me (and many others) is better.
