Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by XanderF
As to "graphics don't matter, only gameplay"
|
Never said that. While graphics do matter, I personally value solid gameplay over cutting edge graphics. I'd much rather play a deep game with subpar graphics, as I'll have a lot more fun than a game that looks great for 2 or 3 hours and then you're done. That's why when I read reviews that go on and on about how pretty or ugly a game looks, I usually just toss them aside as they're not that helpful to me. |
Yes, but that's not what is happening, here. I mean, some games (Doom 3, Unreal Tournament, etc) are not so much 'games' as 'technology showcases'. The reviewers do go on and on about the graphics rather than the game because
that's the point of those titles. The game is tacked on to show how to use the engine, but it's licenses of the engine that the developers are REALLY hoping to sell. That there is a game they can make money off at the same time is just a bonus. For THOSE titles.
This isn't one of those. So, yes, sometimes reviews go on and on about graphics because that is the POINT of it. Most the time, they just comment on how the graphics contribute or detract from the title. Which is what they were doing here. (IE., a version of game with serviceable graphics for the theme, game type, and video card generation is baseline score 'x' and the graphics can '+y' or '-y' to that score. All they are saying is that, for Sh4, the graphics are a '-y' not a '+y')
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by XanderF
As to "The Black Cauldron"...yeah, but that was twenty years ago (yes, twenty). We also played on 4-color monitors at the time at 320x240 resolution if we were LUCKY. Do you really want to play Sh4 at those settings? Why even bring it up? We certainly presume that standards improve over time, why excuse developers when they hold us back? ESPECIALLY when they are holding us back from the industry standard? |
Twenty years....sheeshk...I'm feeling old. Anyways, I'm making the point that I remember when that was the best you were going to get with a game, so I guess my demands and expectations are lower than those of the graphics junkies. 
I could never keep them from stealing Hen Wen, dammit... |
I didn't think you COULD? Wasn't that part of the story??
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AG124
On the subject of the lack of ships, I am not quite as disappointed as one might be prima facie. Although at first glance there are some glaring ommissions, we do have to realize that it takes time to build these models, and the dev team had a limited amount of time to do it (while building the rest of the game, or at least the new parts of it). I'll break my opinion down a bit by ship type:
....
Overall though, I think we got a pretty good selection, with the excpetion of carriers. Plus, of course, there are always modders...  |
Honestly, I'm probably more jaded to "ship selection" than you. 'Pacific Fighters' shipped with
ONE actual cruisers. Indianapolis. That's IT. NO Japanese cruisers AT ALL. Oh, and the 'battleships' for each side? Just the King George V model with different flags for US or Japan. ROFL. Yes, it's a flight sim, and Sh4 is a naval sim, but the ship variety is almost intoxicating compared to PF!