[QUOTE="cowgriller"][QUOTE="funsohng"] graphic =/= quality of the game against what you said before... ("that doesn't change the fact that they look like last gen games.") i think i lost your point. were u saying Wii has bad graphics or bad games? and dont even talk about quality before you play the game or at least do a research on what the game is.funsohng
wii has both bad graphics and bad games. graphics =/= quality, agreed. but graphics do act like an indicator to the quality of the game. for instance, stalin vs. martians. looks bad, is bad. but sometimes, graphics overshadow, or cover-up an aspect of a game. look at assassins creed. it looks great, but is repetitive and gets boring with little replay value. once again, graphics help to serve as an indicator of quality, not what makes a quality title.
what you just said still doesnt prove that wii games are bad. there are still tons of "graphically inferior" 2D games coming out and as well as ps1/n64 looking 2d games on handheld, which are solid in gameplay wise. sure, if a graphic is good and the gameplay is good, that game is awesome. but what bothers me is that you are saying the game has to have a good graphic to even be qualified as a good game. what you said up there was that some bad game has either a good graphic or bad bad graphic, but you failed to prove that a good game can only have a good graphic, which i believe is what you were trying to prove. Plus, there are other indicators of quality, and what you have just done was looking at quality only through how good the graphic looks, which is very narrow-minded behaviour. and dude dont diss my AC i love that gamewtf?? you lost me. also, handhelds cannot be compared to consoles because they are severely limited in hardware.
secondly, i'm not insulting assassins creed. i have the game and love. i've played it several times over which is why i can say for a fact that the game gets boring. and what pissed me off the most of the lack of an ending. :evil:
Log in to comment