Also, correct me if I am wrong, what is a video game without the graphics? I would argue that the visuals are the most important part of the video game equation and that the scores should reflect the differences (good and bad) between the platforms.
jomicbro
How good the graphics are is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone will have their own standards for what is visually acceptable. When it comes to how graphics can be tweaked on PC, why on earth should that colour a review score, when practically every PC game allows you to do that? It's so common as to not be worthy of note. Also, I disagree that a video game is 'nothing' without good graphics, as you seem to imply. There is a wealth of old titles in my collection that I still play, in spite of the dated graphics. Some look pretty bad now, but they still have excellent gameplay, and are therefore still very enjoyable.
I play games for fun and entertainment, and I would even counter your arguments that some of the best looking games released in recent years also have sub-par gameplay, story-telling and characterisation. Why? Because the devs know that whizz-bang graphics sell games, no matter how bad they are. If anything, the high focus on quality graphics has led to less effort in other areas of making a game. I will take high quality gameplay over high quality graphics any day of the week, because that is what gives a game longevity. You may be wowed by the graphics of a game for the first twenty minutes, but in the end it all just becomes background noise as you concentrate on what you are supposed to be doing. I'm not saying that a game can look like absolute crap these days and still be enjoyable - obviously the world of graphics has advanced and we all expect a certain standard from modern games. However, saying that one game sucks just because it has some blurry textures or something is disingenuous if that game has better gameplay than another game that is graphically superior.
If you judge every game based primarily on graphics, and expect reviewers to do that same, then I feel sorry for you.
When it comes to 'love for the PC crowd', honestly I think you need to wake up a bit. Consoles are now the lead platform for many AAA games, and will continue to be the lead platform until the next 'next-gen' console hits the market.  Why? Because it's easier for devs to develop and test on static hardware, and they see huge amounts of sales for the console version of a game over the PC version of a game. Many devs will tell you straight that developing a PC only title focusing on PC gameplay is simply not financially viable because of the huge development costs. Yes, there will still be some PC exclusive developers, but they are becoming a rare breed, and many seem to be new (or relatively unknown) development houses, so the quality can vary greatly in respect to both graphics AND gameplay. It sucks, I know, but the PC platform is no longer 'top dog' in the eyes of publishing houses.
Just look at Activision - they recently cut some studios because they wouldn't be able to pump out sequel after sequel every year to milk a franchise bone dry. They should have learned the lesson from EA that pumping out the same game in new clothes every year just leads to mediocre garbage being spewed out on a production line, and the death of creativity. But there you have it - it's all about money at the expense of creativity. And if you're one of the guys on that production line, trying to meet ever more demanding deadlines, is it any wonder that the quality of whatever you are doing is going to suffer?
Log in to comment