Video Game Forums - View Single Post

Codiekitty · 05-31-2006, 06:37 PM

33 million N64s versus 102.5 million PSX's and 26 million PSOnes sounds like an ass kicking to me.

"Gamers don't care about graphics" is a stupid remark. True, if the game has excellent gameplay but the graphics are lacking (I'll use Alundra 2 as an example, though I haven't played much of it), they probably won't care. But they're not going to go through a beautifully painted world rich with all the colors of the rainbow with nothing clashing and ignore it. On the flip side, no gamer is going to play a game that looks like this:

Okay, this is from Action 52, which is often hailed as the worst game ever, but my point still stands; nobody's going to play a game that offends their senses like that. Graphics like that not are not only agonizing to look at, but are also a sign that the designers didn't give a damn about what they were doing. I once compared a video game to a stew, and said that no matter how tasty that stew is nobody's going to eat it if it looked and smelled like diarrhea.

Also, why the hell do you keep bringing that up? I've never said anything about the N64's graphics vs. PSX's graphics. I've been talking about the success of the system and the selection of games between the two. You keep bringing up "REAL gamers don't care about the graphics!" and how the N64 looked better than the PSX (and besides, if Symphony of the Night, Alundra, and Adventures of Lomax versus Yoshi's Story are any sign of how well the two systems handle 2D games, the PSX kicks the N64's ass in that area).

(And if you're "a real gamer who doesn't care about the graphics", why are you using a couple of late N64 games looking better than some early PSX games as a reason why you prefer the N64?)

Where are these lemmings going? The Super Nintendo Super Shire! Hop in line and follow them there!

05-31-2006, 06:37 PM	#114
Codiekitty Just Another Face in Red Jumpsuit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Lemmingland Gender: Posts: 19,143 Thanks: 121 Thanked 174 Times in 120 Posts Points: 52,198.72 Bank: 3,021,450.74 Total Points: 3,073,649.46 Donate	33 million N64s versus 102.5 million PSX's and 26 million PSOnes sounds like an ass kicking to me. "Gamers don't care about graphics" is a stupid remark. True, if the game has excellent gameplay but the graphics are lacking (I'll use Alundra 2 as an example, though I haven't played much of it), they probably won't care. But they're not going to go through a beautifully painted world rich with all the colors of the rainbow with nothing clashing and ignore it. On the flip side, no gamer is going to play a game that looks like this: Okay, this is from Action 52, which is often hailed as the worst game ever, but my point still stands; nobody's going to play a game that offends their senses like that. Graphics like that not are not only agonizing to look at, but are also a sign that the designers didn't give a damn about what they were doing. I once compared a video game to a stew, and said that no matter how tasty that stew is nobody's going to eat it if it looked and smelled like diarrhea. Also, why the hell do you keep bringing that up? I've never said anything about the N64's graphics vs. PSX's graphics. I've been talking about the success of the system and the selection of games between the two. You keep bringing up "REAL gamers don't care about the graphics!" and how the N64 looked better than the PSX (and besides, if Symphony of the Night, Alundra, and Adventures of Lomax versus Yoshi's Story are any sign of how well the two systems handle 2D games, the PSX kicks the N64's ass in that area). (And if you're "a real gamer who doesn't care about the graphics", why are you using a couple of late N64 games looking better than some early PSX games as a reason why you prefer the N64?) Where are these lemmings going? The Super Nintendo Super Shire! Hop in line and follow them there! Last edited by CodieKitty; 05-31-2006 at 07:06 PM.