Agreed, I've seen gamers talk about how graphics should always take a back seat to style, then go on to criticize a game for not being "next gen-looking" enough
for example, many have criticized methafor for its technical side, absolutely useless and senseless criticism because the artistic direction of that game is spectacular, and above all a game like methafor doesn't need ultra-realistic graphics, people should start using their brains before speaking.
Awesome video. Instantly subbed. I grew up in the NES era (yeah, I'm old) and have always been a gameplay over graphics person. The more realistic graphics became, the more I disliked those games, typically. In the past 5-10 years, I can barely think of any games I've played that had realistic graphics or were AAA, besides Red Dead 2 and Tomb Raider. I've been absolutely loving all of the superb indie games that have been coming out.
Excellent video. I have been gaming since the Atari days. All of my favorite games have always been because of story and substance over graphics. Pretty graphics are fun to look at, but I'll take an amazing story with well written characters and an immersive world any day.
Its the same thing I'm wondering too, they could have nominated yakuza infinite wealth, the yakuza series has been cooking out beautiful games for years but they are never calculated.
I couldn't agree more, the main point being that a game comes down to its gameplay, features & system as the main focus not its graphics. Sure I do agree great graphics creates stunning visuals but if the core gameplay is barebones and nothing unique or innovative makes it just another title of a certain genre with better / worse graphics.
I still love graphics, just moreso the HD-2D titles melt my heart to look at. My most played game of this year is EDF6 which has relatively bad graphics.
Agreed, I've seen gamers talk about how graphics should always take a back seat to style, then go on to criticize a game for not being "next gen-looking" enough
for example, many have criticized methafor for its technical side, absolutely useless and senseless criticism because the artistic direction of that game is spectacular, and above all a game like methafor doesn't need ultra-realistic graphics, people should start using their brains before speaking.
Awesome video. Instantly subbed. I grew up in the NES era (yeah, I'm old) and have always been a gameplay over graphics person. The more realistic graphics became, the more I disliked those games, typically. In the past 5-10 years, I can barely think of any games I've played that had realistic graphics or were AAA, besides Red Dead 2 and Tomb Raider. I've been absolutely loving all of the superb indie games that have been coming out.
Excellent video. I have been gaming since the Atari days. All of my favorite games have always been because of story and substance over graphics. Pretty graphics are fun to look at, but I'll take an amazing story with well written characters and an immersive world any day.
My question is why is a “rogue like” gambling simulator nominated for game of the year?
Its the same thing I'm wondering too, they could have nominated yakuza infinite wealth, the yakuza series has been cooking out beautiful games for years but they are never calculated.
@ I’ll have to check that out. I’ve been needing something new that doesn’t let me down. Thanks dawg 🤘🏽
I couldn't agree more, the main point being that a game comes down to its gameplay, features & system as the main focus not its graphics. Sure I do agree great graphics creates stunning visuals but if the core gameplay is barebones and nothing unique or innovative makes it just another title of a certain genre with better / worse graphics.
I still love graphics, just moreso the HD-2D titles melt my heart to look at. My most played game of this year is EDF6 which has relatively bad graphics.
Indie games and Kickstarters are holding it down right now
No one judged games quality by it's graphics.
Have you played shadow of the colossus?
I've always wanted to play that one.