Ravensword wrote...
But shiny graphics =/= quality game.
I know, and that's not what I said in any way. I'm just saying that graphics are easy and safe to progress with whereas adventurous mechanics aren't. There's really no reason for developers not to push for shiny graphics, because the capability to improve is just always there and it gets easier and easier as technology advances.
I would say that graphics are part of the quality of a game. I don't mind older styles of graphics; hell, I still play Fallout and Planescape: Torment now and then and I love them. I just want the graphics to be of a consistent quality and performance. As for general quality, I'd say that is largely technical as well. A game needs a certain level of polish and a well implemented system of mechanics. It obviously doesn't hurt to have great writing, either.
Still, you could say that games like Halo and CoD are well polished games of a high quality (and at the time of release they don't even have the 'shiniest' graphics. BlOps II was released at 720 native. Really? 720 in 2012?) but they are rarely innovative. Being innovative means putting your neck out to try something new, and that isn't the kind of behavior that major publishers engage in because they are just corporations at the end of the day. That's one reason I'm so excited about some of these Kickstarter games that are supposed to start coming out.
When I think about the future gaming world I want to live in, it's one in which publishers and distributors are dead and buried and you get your content through a direct relationship with the developers. That way, any kind of game that there's any market for could get made instead of everything being homogenized for mass marketing.





Retour en haut





