| Bodhesatva said: In your opinion. Obviously, other people have different opinions and priorities. For example, I can certainly imagine a car enthusiast looking at a game with mediocre graphics but amazing features and driving modes; they might claim that the game uses its features as a "crutch" for its lack of visual fidelity. This is because the graphical quality is first and foremost in this genre, and gameplay is a secondary concern. If you don't agree with those priorities, that's fine. It's your opinion. Your opinion happens to be the more popular one, so you can always point that out. |
The foundation of any game is gameplay. It's not an opinion. It's how games work.
| Kyros said: What is gameplay to you? If you take away graphics and with it: Atmosphere, rousing story telling, immersion, emotions like horror, shock, awe etc. You are left with the definition of a game from 1980. |
Since when did graphics pertain to story, horror, shock and awe? Those are presentational and artisitic direction elements. Don't combine them with graphics.
| Bodhesatva said: One other thing to consider is that a game that costs 20 million to produce on the 360 and sells 5 million copies makes more money than a game that costs 10 million to produce on the Wii and sells 5 million copies. Therefore, the AAA games that sell 5-10 million (like Gears or CoD4) are particularly profitable on the PS3/360. This is one of the things discouraging blockbuster development on the Wii.
|
Is this some of that new fuzzy math or are you confusing point of sale revenue with profit?
The rEVOLution is not being televised
