Hey guyses,
I wanted to ask:what's more important to you - graphics or gameplay? Would you sacrifice 3D graphics for a pixellated 2D game which has great gameplay, such as Sid Meier's Colonization?I guess many gaming industries today concentrate on making great graphics, but not on actual gameplay, so almost ALL games suck these days… I remember the good 'ol days, when there was nothing more but a MS-DOS screen displaying such classics as UFO and Warlords I… Nostalgic :]Then there are roguelikes. You either hate them or love them. I'm on the latter side. Nothing beats the feeling of little "@"s beating the crap out of little "W"s. The fun thing is, the more 'sucky' the graphics, the more your imagination takes place and creates your own image of the thing.What is your opinion?Cheers,aEon
Yeah, why leave ASCII graphics? Minimal graphics are better than just letters. I used the "@"s and "W"s just as an example - roguelikes are netter when some tiles are used.
I actually prefer 2D pixellated games, as long as they're made well. Graphics are impressive and a good addition, but definetely not the most important part of a game. As for Rogue-likes, I like very few of them, and I'm not a big fan of them. They all seem so simmilar and… well, to be honest, I'm not sure why I dislike them.
Well, I like consistent graphics. It doesn't take a lot of work to setup graphics with a style. That gives the oomph to the game, but the gameplay gives me a reason to play it a second time
When I say 'graphics' in games I tend to say visuals now. My friend pointed out that games with bad graphics can look pretty. Take PC games from late 1990's. They have atmosphere with low poly counts!