Sure, graphics matter to an extent, but at what cost? Introversion's (Darwinia, Defcon) Mark Morris argues that developers' pursuit of photo-realism is a dead-end for the industry.
So far, with visually abstract games like Uplink, Darwinia and Defcon: Everybody Dies, Introversion has taken an obvious stance on the graphics vs. gameplay debate. Company director Morris says that Introversion is likely never to create a photo-realistic title, and his reasoning is simple: "Everybody's doing it, it's expensive and, most importantly, photo-realism doesn't matter."
But really, would any reasonable person argue that graphics (particularly photo-realistic graphics) are more important than the gameplay factor? Probably not, but Morris says that the games that are released nowadays indicate otherwise.
"What I think happens too often is that [developers] sort of go, 'We're going to show you the best graphics you've ever seen and then we might pack a bit of gameplay or a little bit of entertaining fun on at the end," he says. "I think that's a very bad thing, a very bad thing to do, and I think we're seeing a lot of companies doing it."
Square Enix launches Final Fantasy X 25th anniversary site, revealing new Nomura art, books, music releases, and merchandise.
Look I know VIII has its issues and all that but how on earth can the do big anniversary events with new artwork and merchandise for VII, IX and X yet VIII got sweet f*** all.
They could have given it something during its 25th anniversary yet all it got was a single Happy Anniversary post on their social media.
they should know that we are OG fans of VIII as it sold truckload as well. not as much as VII or X. I personally didn't like IX but X and VI are my personal fav.
Shadow Hearts 2 covenant is another game I love. I hope one day someone can make remake, I would be delighted
Final Fantasy VIII is great and you are always the first to defend it in the comments
The Wii is now a retro console. Let’s get nostalgic about an often maligned system.
Crazy to think the WII is to the Switch 2, as the NES was to the WII back then. 20 Year difference.
My wife asks me to bust it out (heh) everyone once in a while to play bowling and tennis with the kids. There was a ton of slop on it but some good stuff as well.
Wii was great but boy howdy did it cause Microsoft to go on a dark walk with the Kinect and the disastrous XBox One launch that they arguably never recovered from.
Not nostalgic for me.. I was there.. anyone who wasnt a little kid realized it was a gamecube with shit tacked onto it, it was the "joke" system and was well below even the switch in terms of comparing it to the latest machines at the time. The machine was well loved by young people and "casual gamers" who now remember it 20 years on, or in most cases more of its sales came in the 15-20 years ago range not right at launch- but again its not nostalgic for people who were "gamers" then really, just for those who ended up with one in their house, the games , graphics, interface and online features were archaic already in 2006.
A brutal reset, a smarter story, and a return to what made it great—Mortal Kombat (2011) revived the series.
Underrated comment. I used to hate that game so much that any time my siblings asked me to play it, I just picked Hom and shut myself down mid-match.
15 years went by so fast. I remember playing through the story mode at launch.
Yes, it does.
if not why made new and more powerfull/expensive machines?
We only needed a saturn or Ps1 if Photo-realism doesn´t matter.
Yes it dose. Just look at R: FOM and GOW. Both games play great and have great graphics. Crack down has awesome graphics and Game play that is on par with the best Mario games out. And Halo is Just WOW. And Madden 2007 is pretty too. So this guy is lame.
The best games have awesome game play and he probably sucks at video games in the 1st place. I tired of the tools that try to make it seem like good graphics are a bad thing. That is why I buy so many games. I want to see the best graphics and get pulled into a game by its realistic effects.
yes, they do
I'm tempted to instantly agree with the guys above and say yes,photo -realism matters.But i would just like to qualify that a bit more,before i pledge alliegance to the almighty graphics gods. afterall, we have been playing games for decades now and the first game characters consisted of not much more than stick figures.I don't think we enjoyed those games any less than we enjoy the modern, graphic intensive games we play today.So,it may be its what we have become accustomed to rather than whats actually needed from an entertainment point of view.I sometimes wonder if it isn't the industry that pushes the graphics, because of a lack of inventiveness and originality in the gameplay department.See,i don't recall us arguing over the graphics quality in Mario, or the fact that street fighter wasn't hi-res, no, we where to busy enjoying wonderfully entertaining games.Photo-realism in games is inevitable,whether its essential is, i think, debatable.