In the last two decades or so, certain developers have decided not to follow the traveled path and have ventured into uncharted, albeit risky, territory. The question that most people seem to ask in editorials, forums, or what have you, seems to be "is it worth it?"
It seems to me that, throughout the course of video game history, people have associated progression with graphical capabilities. (I'm talking about PC and consoles.)
"Oh hey dad! Can I get the Sega Genesis!? It has 16-bit graphics!"
"What does that mean? Oh.. I don't know.. it's better.. right?"
For a while, especially in the 90's, this was the common argument of any game player, and it was somewhat merited, yeah? Video games as an entertainment and art medium are still relatively young, so it's natural for people to make such assumptions. (In fact, some people still refuse to
believe that video games could ever be considered art.)
So now we find ourselves in the age of fancy super duper 3d graphics. The more realistic looking, the better. I'm sure everyone remembers when The Wind Waker was first presented at that video game conference.... Everyone gasped at the sight of the super deformed cartoonish graphics.. but why? Should the quality of a game be dependent on how closely one can associate it's aesthetic value with reality? I miss the days when people actually had to use their imagination when playing games..
But alas, as a passionate gamer I must move with the times and be accepting. After all, Okami sucked because it looked fake.. right?
I rant and I rant.. I guess my point is, Graphics don't make the game. That's why the PS1, SNES, and almost every other console is more enjoyable than the xbox 360.
And not just because they don't fucking break every 3 months.
-A
