| palou said: ... and, to the experience we receive from games.
I am not denying that, directly compared, an HD game will be more appealing than a 480 p counterpart. However, I am convinced that this is only the case because the comparison is made. Played individually, with nothing prior to compare to, I am convinced that the experience would be of almost equivalent quality. Graphics superior to anything we have previously seen create a certain sense of awe, just as graphics bellow what we are used to seeing create a sense of disapointment. (an effect which is temporary.) The problem is, the negative impression given is greater (lasts longer through your playthrough) than the positive one. Devellopers putting alot of focus on graphics most of all harm the reception that the games of competitors will get, as they will, following the release of the product, have the need to equally put further focus on the department, to offer the same experience to gamers - now awaiting more. I firmly believe that, had companies somehow magically come to an agreement to go no further than what they had in, let's say, 2003, people would be enjoying gaming more today, as the ever growing ressources of the industry could have been distributed towards other domains, with non-relativised impact on the experience given, or simply making additional quality titles. |
2003? Graphics were already top notch in 2003, there was already a graphics war in 2003. If you really believe graphics are detrimental to videogames you need to go deeper with your logic.
We need Nes graphics. Welp, Batman on NES was already too good looking!
We need Pong graphics on Atari in order to make gameplay, innovation and experience the heart of what videogames should be...
With that kind of reasoning, it's either Pong graphics or continuous graphics improvement like we have today. You can't choose a good enough hardware in the middle.
