Fig
The Altruist
What's happening forum! I hope you guys had a good sleep last night (if you even sleep that is )
As a gamer, I always look at the pros and cons of each game. Most Xbox360 and PS3 games have incredible graphics, but you can only do so much without being tedious, while the majority of Nintendo games that have "horrible" graphics as many people like to call it, and yet Nintendo has the most sells and discussions about their games. Personally, graphics are the last thing I look at, because graphics don't make the game, the gameplay does. One game that comes to mind is the Call of Duty games. I was impressed by the graphics when I first saw them, but the majority of the campaign and multiplayer is just shooting people. Yes, I know It's supposed to be a shooting game, but so is Metroid and Metroid is not just about shooting.People focus too much on the graphics of any game and RATE these games based on their graphics. That is what makes me so upset, because people are just focusing on graphics, they just think the games are only good by how the graphics look like. "Dude, that Zelda game with the sky sword for the Wii is horrible. It looks like a cartoon. Who would want to play that?" When I heard those two guys talking trash about Skyward Sword, I gave them a taste of their own medicine. "oh yea, well what about your Call of Duty games? The graphics are pretty good, I have to admit, but its gameplay is horrible. All you do is shoot, that's it? No undercover missions, not finding the plans of the enemy while disguised as the enemy? That's all you do: shoot and kill, not even ariel assaults." "Oh but Call of Duty is a real life game that can be done in real life, not your Zelda and Pokemon crap." This is why I love Nintendo. I believe the graphics are incredible in the game they create, and I love their gameplay even more. I just wanted to point this out for gamers who have ever had a talk about graphics vs gameplay.
As a gamer, I always look at the pros and cons of each game. Most Xbox360 and PS3 games have incredible graphics, but you can only do so much without being tedious, while the majority of Nintendo games that have "horrible" graphics as many people like to call it, and yet Nintendo has the most sells and discussions about their games. Personally, graphics are the last thing I look at, because graphics don't make the game, the gameplay does. One game that comes to mind is the Call of Duty games. I was impressed by the graphics when I first saw them, but the majority of the campaign and multiplayer is just shooting people. Yes, I know It's supposed to be a shooting game, but so is Metroid and Metroid is not just about shooting.People focus too much on the graphics of any game and RATE these games based on their graphics. That is what makes me so upset, because people are just focusing on graphics, they just think the games are only good by how the graphics look like. "Dude, that Zelda game with the sky sword for the Wii is horrible. It looks like a cartoon. Who would want to play that?" When I heard those two guys talking trash about Skyward Sword, I gave them a taste of their own medicine. "oh yea, well what about your Call of Duty games? The graphics are pretty good, I have to admit, but its gameplay is horrible. All you do is shoot, that's it? No undercover missions, not finding the plans of the enemy while disguised as the enemy? That's all you do: shoot and kill, not even ariel assaults." "Oh but Call of Duty is a real life game that can be done in real life, not your Zelda and Pokemon crap." This is why I love Nintendo. I believe the graphics are incredible in the game they create, and I love their gameplay even more. I just wanted to point this out for gamers who have ever had a talk about graphics vs gameplay.