I think it should be set in space too. Like on a NASA spaceship, where you do spacewalks and collect data in a computer.

I honestly believe that, if your visuals can't stand up as "good" twenty years later, they never had any real quality to begin with. It has nothing to do with the system, which has a shorter shelf-life than the game anyway. Byzantine art has no linear perspective and uses a flat "gold" backdrop, but it's still beautiful. That's over a thousand years of technological innovation rendered irrelevant. There's no arguing with that.

[QUOTE="klarfis"]I think my previous comment got buried, so I want to reiterate the main point: graphics ratings are idiotic, since they're only accurate for a few months. There's no point in including them in review scores at all. Regardless of VC, platform, etc. there's just no point.Rocky32189

Wrong. They are based almost primarily on the contraints of the system. Therefore, they are always relevant.

wow...almost primarily? That means...secondarily? Anyway, it's not even true. Graphics ratings are compared to the other games available at around the same time, since no one knows what the "best output" for a given system is, in the abstract. My point is that, since the comparisons being made are so circumstantial (i.e. whatever games have come out so far for the same system) they really don't say very much about the game at all. Plus, when the system goes obsolete and the game lives on, the rating is totally irrelevant. So this whole argument about how to rate re-releases is silly, because this argument itself will seem horribly outdated in a couple of years.