It really irks me when people pretend to know so much and hold their opinions in higher regard than everyone elses because they think they are always right... I had a friend who said that he wouldn't get bad company, medal of honor, or black ops because they had worse graphics than mw2... has he not seen how gimmicky and horrible that gameplay is? Granted, moh was fail in many ways but still... how can he dismiss it for being "way worse than mw2"
i hate when people judge a game based off of its graphics..
- Thread starter Brandon Lester
- Start date
Although I don't base my opinion of games on it's graphics, I do give bonus points if graphics rock!
And as for your friend, please tell him I said something terrible about him...
And as for your friend, please tell him I said something terrible about him...
Normally, people who judge games on their graphical quality have no idea what they're talking about whatsoever. They don't know about engines or textures or anything that anyone who would take any sort of real interest in a game's visuals would. They just say "BAD GRAPHICS" without having the faintest idea what they're talking about.
The only time I ever accept bad graphics as a viable complaint is when it arises through plain, unabashed laziness. A good example is Dragon Age Origins. Low-resolution textures, obvious breaks in terrain and other visual issues made me feel sad at the effort put into it, especially when I knew the engine it was running on could run a good-looking game smooth as silk (with Mass Effect 2 being a case in point).
The only time I ever accept bad graphics as a viable complaint is when it arises through plain, unabashed laziness. A good example is Dragon Age Origins. Low-resolution textures, obvious breaks in terrain and other visual issues made me feel sad at the effort put into it, especially when I knew the engine it was running on could run a good-looking game smooth as silk (with Mass Effect 2 being a case in point).
My definition of 'Good Graphics' is that you can tell what things do, and can discern what's going on. Minecraft (to pick a random example) fits this, although many games with ostensibly 'better' graphics do not.
Yeah I tend to focus on gameplay above all other aspects of a game. Then narrative, then either sound or graphics I'm not sure which I prefer.
realism in graphics mean nothing. if all games try to be realistic, then they all look gray and brown. I want my games to be colorful, lush, full worlds that I want to go to. so like Okami, Zelda (twilight princess, despite the bloom, is still beautiful), and Bayonetta.
And FPS graphics all suck now, sure they are detailed and realistic (again that is not always good)but I can't tell them apart.
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/2/7/5/25275.jpg?v=1
see that these "good graphics" do to gaming?
And FPS graphics all suck now, sure they are detailed and realistic (again that is not always good)but I can't tell them apart.
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/2/7/5/25275.jpg?v=1
see that these "good graphics" do to gaming?
He thinks that Modern Warfare 2 has better graphics than Bad Company 2 (I assume that you meant the second)? Don't get me wrong; Modern Warfare 2 has good graphics, but Bad Company 2 is amazing (in my opinion, anyway).
In my opinion, graphics are just one part of what makes a game. If it has bad gameplay, then I don't care how good the graphics are.
In my opinion, graphics are just one part of what makes a game. If it has bad gameplay, then I don't care how good the graphics are.
I'd always thought they did. Just because it would make sense. Now it seems that they weren't lazy, but they put a lot of effort into making an engine that looks worse. I'm not sure whether that improves my opinion of it or degrades it.Grygor said:
