Again I forgot to put some more reasoning into my post. When I said 10 hours for me that feels a bit short because I'd like to know that my £40 actually gets me something good. Time can be a factor to how a game plays because it can say in a way if it is challenging or not., example of not so challenging one; Worms: Worldwide Warfare on the DS.

I wrote Black because when it finished I thought, "Is that it?" I got the game for free when I bought my PS2 (Only reason I chose it) but I still felt ripped off.

Well, U Dont Want Ur Game To Look Liek A Flippin 30's Movie, U Know, Cardboard Cutoutsuberpwner93

Actually that doesn't sound like a bad idea if it was a detective game based in that time period. It could work. If it has a good story I'd play it.

Jonas, yes this topic isn't new and everything has been said before. Yes I could have looked for the older ones if not been deleted. I have to write a dissertation for my Degree this year and I'm still deciding what topic to go with. Casual vs Hardcore Gamer is one, Graphics vs Gameplay is another or Psychology of Gaming, Gamers and Industry(hence this topic and another one I did about what is acceptable and what isn't when all should be fair- but has been erased now). I need reference material and start my own discussions help before I choose the final one, and this is becominig a good topic that can branch out further. Also game play, Jonas, is what you do in the game not part of the graphical core this is given away by the words GAME and PLAY.

I prefer the old games. I prefer The orginal Sonics (Master System and Mega Drive) to the new ones. I prefer Caesar II to Caesar IV. THe original Command And Conquer to Tiberian Wars. (The correct name). Mortal Kombat 2 and Ultimalte MK 3 to the new ones. I prefer Ocarina of Time to Twilight Princess. I still play the original Dungeon Keeper and TIE Fighter Star Wars. They felt more believeable. They spent more time on the gameplay and story than the graphical requirements, mostly because resources back then on PCs were restricted and games had to develop differently.

Here's a big comparisson: Star Wars Empire at War, a revamped version of Star Wars Supremacy, but in Supremacy you could do far more in it. The space graphics were bland but you could have full fleets, like twenty Executor-class Star Destroyers on the screen at once. You could do diplomacy missions, more heroes that you could train up to be better in leadership or inciting rebellion. And there were 200 hundred planets. I still play that to Empire At War. Black or Gears of War, I prefer Monolith's Blood. They were far more interesting because they had something different where most games are falling into a pattern where they need better graphics but do not really add anything. They may have graphical realism but they don't feel real, example racing games.

So I don't get bored with the same graphics. Also it's not the graphic engines that you say need to improve, it's the processors, many can't even keep up with the newest ones.

I hope I get some measure of revenge.

Here's a question for the graphical loving people. What would you really prefer. Spending £40-50 on a game that lasts only 10 hours but is photo realistic or would you want a game that allows you to play for 40 hours and has graphics that are similar to...Ocarina of Time or Sonic 1/2 on the Mega Drive (only games I could think of).