Dys said:
believer258 said:
How is bad graphics a reason for hating a game? If the graphics are objectively bad (which is different from not being photo realistic) it renders the game near unplayable, it's hugely important to be able to clearly and easily identify what's happening ingame. This whole attitude of "I hate good graphics because they detract from gameplay" is stupid, if the quality of the graphics falls low enough, the gameplay becomes very, very bad very, very quickly.
I think the "because it's on console x" or "because gaming reviews scored it poorly (or highly in some cases)" are both incomprehensibly stupid reasons to hate a game.
All I said was that bad graphics are a stupid reason to hate a game. A game should be able to stand up on gameplay, if nothing else. Story should also be good, but it's forgivable if gameplay is good. I never said graphics can't enhance a game, and if the graphics are so horrible you can't see shit, then yeah, they do detract from the game. I don't think that's the case very often, though.
"I hate good graphics because they detract from gameplay"
Were you implying that I thought that? That's just crazy. I said two words: "Bad graphics". Graphics can enhance a game (see: Crysis) or bring it down; Star Wars Battlefront 2 had a horrible draw distance on PS2, and therefore lost a point in my book. It was still a good game, though, and it proves my point - games don't need mindblowing graphics to be good.
In the end, graphics fall in the same bucket as story. Story can make a game better, and it can even almost completely rely on it (see: Mass Effect), or a game with minimal story can still be good (see: Timeshift, the original Half-Life, Doom 3). Exact same argument with graphics.
Oh, yes, and ever heard of Megaman Legends? Fucking awesome game when I was a kid. It also had fucking horrible graphics, and even then I knew it did. I didn't care. It was great.