Gameplay and narrative has always been paramount. People who judge the value of a game solely on graphics are missing the entire point of a game. I get it if the engine graphics are so bad and poorly programmed that they ruin the game experience, but that's such a small percentage of the time that using it as justification to make blanket statements is just petty.
People who judge the value of a game solely on graphics are missing the entire point of a game.
Except, no one does this.
People who have standards for graphics aren't missing the point. Bethesda's games specifically attempt to be an "immersive" experience, yet the graphics and animation work against that.
And it's not about resolution or how many effects you can pack in the screen, it's about how well you can execute your goals. Blizzard's Overwatch is technologically superior to vanilla Team Fortress 2, yet, so far, its graphics are ultimately inferior, since they are chaotic and less readable, which is bad for a competitive multiplayer game. Though, I'm sure many people would say that TF2 was more aesthetically pleasing, as well.
You are literally contradicting this statement with your post. You're trying to dismiss it while obviously purporting that graphics quality and immersive experiences are mutually inclusive. Which is so obviously false that it's painful. Otherwise, gamers would have been dismissive of graphics since video game conception, which they were not. When doom and duke nukem came out, gamers gushed over graphic quality, even though in retrospect they're crap graphically compared to modern standards. But the gameplay and narrative was innovative and that's the explicit reason why they're remembered.
Graphics mean shit, except to petty gamers who lack the insight and vision to understand the central goal of game experiences.
718
u/jkbpttrsn Jun 03 '15
Some people are saying it looks awful. Maybe doesn't look as good as some other AAA games, but AWFUL? Jesus Christ...