[QUOTE="fireballonfire"][QUOTE="TranquilityX"] Does it really matter "what's going on under the hood" when the end result looks as good as it does? Same idea with iD's Rage, which, while technically dated with regard to things like lighting and shadows, still looks and runs fantastic.TranquilityX
Well to be frank with you, I don't really care if critics were to dig up old laserdisc games like Mad Dog McCree (100% pre-recorded)and brand them with a graphics king stamp. I thought that when we discussed graphics-king we talked about a games technical merits and not just how it "looks" because if that was to be the case my vote goes to Mad Dog no question about it.
Well, if you approach it from that angle, than sure, you are correct. I just personally think that games should be judged based on how everything looks in the end, is all. For me it's not only "how it looks". By replacing pre-rendered physics, objects, lightning pre-rendered-whatever with the real thing our interaction with a world in a game can be made to bemore complex.
These days too much is focused on looks and no substance. Sacrifice cosmetics for an more immersive game world would in my eyes be a very good trade-off. However developers see it differently they know that the fanboys are sensitive about "the looks" and they also have limited hardware to play around with as a result console games feel just like they always have. The only difference is the new coat of paint.
Log in to comment