Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Are graphics whores all bad?

Kaiserin

Liturgist
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
4,082
I don't think it's useless, as it isn't interchangeable for any other single word. Utilize is dumb because it's just another form of 'use.'
 

Wysardry

Augur
Patron
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
283
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Shannow said:
But seriously, who of the native english speakers here knew the word obsolescent?
I did. I even remember it being used in an 8-bit computer ad.

It's a pointless description though, as all hardware is becoming obsolete even before the design stage is complete.
 

slipgate_angel

Scholar
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
288
Location
Texas
For me, sometimes a pretty box cover, or nice looking visuals will win me over in a game. Although, truthfully, I peffer a game that focuses more on good visual, rather than technicaly improved. Take a look at some of the older Capcom fighting games, such as Darkstalkers, Street fighter 3: third strike, or even Sammies own Guilty Gear series. Each of those games didn't have bloom effect, or rag doll physics, but they were still fun to play.

Oblivion looks pretty pathetic visual wise, because it didn't capture the feeling of a truly epic quest.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
527
Location
Germoney
Crispy said:
Using examples is always fun. There's the ubiquitous Oblivion. Clearly, its graphical appeal is its strongest point and is responsible primarily for the high volume of sales it enjoyed.

Sadly, that might be exactly what many a man and woman in charge of this industry is thinking. It looks like the shits! Who cares about the apparent vivid three-dimensional, real-time Medieval fantasy World you've get to visit, free to do whatever you like? Who minds that the game (coincidentally or no) bothered to have that hook most studios never appear to bother with in the first place, trying to sell their game on polygons, features, mechanics and labels printed onto the back of a box instead?
 

Suchy

Arcane
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
6,032
Location
Potatoland
:roll:
The graphix and immershun whores in me made me spend a rather heavy pouch of coins on iZ3D stereoscopic monitor (ePenis++).
Oblivion still sucked just as bad and mudcrabs popping out of screen didn't help :/
I almost managed to finish G3 though and earlier I couldn't bring myself to play the game at all.
So generally my point is that good graphics help immersion, which - if goes in pair with good gamplay - is something awesome. If gameplay is totally shitty, no amount of bloom, real life 3D and shaders can help it.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom