Exactly. But in their case it's not game breaking.
That's what I said, they have bad graphics but good aesthetics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
Even if you had a a bunch of stuff in a container, it doesn't take that long to find what you want. It isn't a design fail at all, they have a system that works for many people, you simply look for the items you need, it isn't that hard, even if you have a lot of items.
That may be true, but not having a sort system makes you waste a little bit of time very, very often in a lot of games. I guess it's somewhere between 5% and 10% of playtime which I simply waste with scrolling through lists of unnecessary stuff.
You're ( or any number of people) okay with a flawed and poor designed interface ? Good for you. But please stop telling me there is no need or room for improvement.
Not really, it was a FPS with a few scary moments interspersed between the action. You could argue it was survival horror for the first couple levels but (At least the Japanese definition of the term) it needs to be more slow-paced and limited in power. Unlike in Doom were you've got the BF(ucking)G!
Are you sure you're not thinking of another game? DOOM 3 was uniformly creepy throughout, the only part that didn't involve being shocked by a demon jumping out of the wall and slaughtering you while you desperately grab your shotgun was the first 5 minutes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
Good graphics is when the developer chooses a style and does it really well
High Res graphics are as it sounds high resolution graphics such as battlefield 3
and Good graphics is not necesserily High Res graphics
therefore good graphics are vital for a game but high res is not
and good graphics are as important as gameplay because without good graphics you eyes will burn
although this does not apply to text based games
for example minecraft has good graphics but not high res graphics, does this hurt gameplay(the very little it has)? no it does not
Minecraft has good aesthetics, not graphics. You've confused 2 simple terms with each other. A game with good graphics is one with high res textures and 1080p resolution. A game with good aesthetics is one that looks appealing to the eye.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
The makers claim this is real-time gameplay footage...
If that's true, then modern games really ARE using only a fraction of what modern hardware can do... and now I can't wait for the next round of consoles, so everything is like this
And for my two cents in the "graphics" argument:
Aesthetics and the technical side of graphics are two completely different things. You could have the best engine in the world, and it would still look like crap if your artistic direction is busted. Meanwhile, you can do wonders with even a simple engine if you know what looks good. IMO Minecraft does the latter very well.
No, I'm stating the truth. Graphics and aesthetics are two different things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
That's what I said, they have bad graphics but good aesthetics.
That may be true, but not having a sort system makes you waste a little bit of time very, very often in a lot of games. I guess it's somewhere between 5% and 10% of playtime which I simply waste with scrolling through lists of unnecessary stuff.
You're ( or any number of people) okay with a flawed and poor designed interface ? Good for you. But please stop telling me there is no need or room for improvement.
Are you sure you're not thinking of another game? DOOM 3 was uniformly creepy throughout, the only part that didn't involve being shocked by a demon jumping out of the wall and slaughtering you while you desperately grab your shotgun was the first 5 minutes.
Minecraft has good aesthetics, not graphics. You've confused 2 simple terms with each other. A game with good graphics is one with high res textures and 1080p resolution. A game with good aesthetics is one that looks appealing to the eye.
The makers claim this is real-time gameplay footage...
If that's true, then modern games really ARE using only a fraction of what modern hardware can do... and now I can't wait for the next round of consoles, so everything is like this
And for my two cents in the "graphics" argument:
Aesthetics and the technical side of graphics are two completely different things. You could have the best engine in the world, and it would still look like crap if your artistic direction is busted. Meanwhile, you can do wonders with even a simple engine if you know what looks good. IMO Minecraft does the latter very well.
No, I'm stating the truth. Graphics and aesthetics are two different things.