Is it me or a lot of fanboy claim graphic is not important?
- Thread starter Xellos2099
- Start date
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Anyone who says graphics don't matter really means graphics isn't the only thing that matters.
If graphics didn't matter then no advancements would have been made in consoles in the last 30 years. Graphics can allow for awesome variety in gameplay. Look at Metal Gear on the NES and Metal Gear Solid for the PS One.[/quote]For me, at least, it's a contextual argument. Do I see the 360 or PS3 doing anything that are going to make games more fun for me right now? No. If I answered yes to that question, a follow-up would be "is the additional fun they are providing a good value for the cost?" I obviously can't answer that given my first answer.
Whenever I say "graphics aren't important," I mean that a well-developed game on the PS2, Xbox, or GC looks good enough to the point where I don't notice the graphics, I'm more interested in what I'm doing in the game. So I don't want games to look worse than what we currently see, but I don't see the need to pay a surcharge for better-looking ones.
If graphics didn't matter then no advancements would have been made in consoles in the last 30 years. Graphics can allow for awesome variety in gameplay. Look at Metal Gear on the NES and Metal Gear Solid for the PS One.[/quote]For me, at least, it's a contextual argument. Do I see the 360 or PS3 doing anything that are going to make games more fun for me right now? No. If I answered yes to that question, a follow-up would be "is the additional fun they are providing a good value for the cost?" I obviously can't answer that given my first answer.
Whenever I say "graphics aren't important," I mean that a well-developed game on the PS2, Xbox, or GC looks good enough to the point where I don't notice the graphics, I'm more interested in what I'm doing in the game. So I don't want games to look worse than what we currently see, but I don't see the need to pay a surcharge for better-looking ones.
bread's done