vivster said:
The correct advancement would be to stop treating as if visual fidelity and gameplay are mutually exclusive things. Bad games don't suck because of great graphics and bad looking games aren't great because of bad graphics. I think it is in our right to demand both at the same time. There are plenty examples to boot. Saying a bad looking game is better because of gameplay is just as wrong as saying a bad game is better because of better graphics. Because both failed half of their job in this audio-visual medium. |
But that balance is damn hard to find when you need to waste 200 million dollars and a 2000 people team to make a single game, there is no freedom there, there is little space for the game to have a soul, any bad calculated risk can make you lose money so you better don't make a single one. That's one of the reasons why so many triple A are so damn dissapointing or/and need to sell a ton of milions to be profitable, they are all impressive in the way they can sell you the game, because they rather spend most of the budget and talent on technical stuff than on most important things, cause chances are you are gonna buy it by the looks as most people.
Nintendo is bringing a more conservative philosy to to the table, one that, in my opinion, benefit the average quality of the games, and they have still achieved some very good looking games: Mk8 and 3DWorld are 2 great examples of games that look and play great even at 60fps on ancient technology. Now you can dislike this approach, you can argue that if Nintendo and its philosophy was ruling the place right now it would hold back the industry on the technical side, but I think is essential their approach is not underrated as they somehow bring some balance to the industry, and its decline would make more harm than anything else.
