ItchyRash wrote:It surely depends entirely on the type of game. If you're trying to go for real world immersion then the better the graphics capabilities the easier it'll be to create a believable, realistic world. Obviously for the likes of things like Battlefield and Forza these are a necessity. I would go as far as to say even games such as Fallout and Elder Scrolls need to keep improving the graphics in order to create more better looking, more believable environments.I was in awe of the visuals in Skyrim in really helped to bring the world alive, more so than if it had all be cell shaded. The one thing i'm most looking forward to about next gen is seeing the worlds that can be created for the likes of Fallout, Elder Scrolls and GTA. For the likes or Dust: An Elysian Tale, Limbo, Bastion or Rayman Origins amazing graphics aren't required or even wanted. All of those games would've been ruined had they looked incredibly realistic
SilentDark wrote:. Personally, and some of what I'm about to say is going to be denounced as heresy, I think System Shock 2 is a better game than Bioshock (ducks behind flame shield) now hear me out before you lynch me. Bioshock looks good, it has a lot of interesting ideas but at it's core it is basically System Shock 2, a lone character in an enclosed isolated space who has to murder the former inhabitants which have become freakishly mutated. To me System Shock is creepier (ninja assassins still freeze me in total fear, the cyborg midwives still give me nightmares) and has a better villain (she incurably insane) Bioshock is graphically superior, even the rebirth texture pack can't hide the age of SS2 but System Shock 2 still offers the better experience for me.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests