TB_Infidel said:
Frenger said:
FFS. You compared the game mechanics to WoW, a concept is over 30 years old. But graphics matters? Always? People still play games that are 5- 10 years old, when there are top-of-the-line games out there. People still play Counter-strike 1.6 and Starcraft, yet those games have have absolutely dreadful graphics. What are you getting at? All I see here is that you believe hardware is more important than the games they run on. Man, I rather play Dwarf Fortress than Crysis any time of the week. Immersion *IS* in the eye of the beholder. Graphics are worse than new games, and sometimes even old ones, but the "fact" you point as are not infact... err, a "fact".
It's an opinion. On a technical standpoint, there is nothing "bad" about the graphics in DAO, or Starcraft, or Civ 2, or Ultima IV. Why? Because they do the job. If the graphics doesn't load properly, then I guess it's bad(had no glitches in DAO yet, plenty in RRD, but that's expected). I had screentearing on Half-life 2, but not Quake 1 on the same machine. Guess Quake 1 had better graphics then... OR NOT. Maybe it's a faulty driver, or maybe Quake runs differently than Half-life 2, since they are on two different engines. Or better yet, they are two separate games, 6-7 years apart. Hell, I get less graphical errors in Baldur's Gate than Mass Effect 1. Damn, they can't make decent graphics these days...
also,
On topic, yeah, Dragon Age was pretty good. Liked KOTOR better, though.
A 30 year old concept?
That is my point. It is dated and boring as sin.
Why do people play old games? Because they are cheap and/or nostalgia. Within 10 years new games do come out that progress the genre, yet people stick with the old games as that is what they are familiar with - not because it is better. Look at DOW, look at MW 1. Yet people still play CS and StarCraft.
Again, graphics helps with immersion. Unless someone can explain why something looking more realistic does not help, then I will keep calling you people cheap. And the quality (not immersions, don't know where you read that ) of graphics is a fact as it is technical and you can simply compare the maths.
On the technical side, DA graphics are bad. To argue they do the job is to argue why move to colour film? Black and white worked right? Screen tearing? Learn to use V-sync....As you do not know about this, I feel that yet again I am debating with someone who has no knowledge of the topic at hand. Every heard of polygon count? Texture resolutions? Thought not.
Well, to be perfectly honest, MW2(or any "modern" shooter) is built on a concept that is 15- 20 years old aswell, so that is old as sin too. Every game are built on some idea that have been conjured up the past 20-25 years. The rest of your arguments are irrelevant too, at least to me, as I don't give a shit about them. I do know what polygon count, texture resolution mean. But why should I care about that if that's the last thing on the list, if on a list at all. I just bought Civilization 5. Do you honestly believe I cared about the graphics when there are more changes to the game than what meets the eye(or ears). Hell, I still play Civ 2 on my shitty netbook, and that game was released 1996.
Good graphics are fine, no argument from me here, but I honestly don't care what a game looks like, I want a game that is
fun. If you don't like playing games with "bad graphics", then don't. But trying to impose an opinion as "fact" is just silly. And there is no math behind your argument, no matter how hard you try.
PS. Honestly, I would love to see those numbers. And a reason why I (or anyone) should care.
DS.
