Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens
Wait a minute. What criteria are you using to compare the 'compelling-ness' of each game? How is Fahrenheit more 'compelling' than Myst V? By what standard? And is this standard usable for any other kind of game or should be it be exclusive to these two titles?
|
I think've lost track on what we are arguing about, but let me try to answer. Compelling-ness would be a completely subjective factor, hence repeated "IMO" in my previous post.
Fahrenheit is a pretty natural comparison, being a cutting-edge game (as far as adventures are concerned) released on the very same day. Just as well I could put
Myst V next to its previous instalments, by which it pales, but that you would call unfair because
Exile and
Revelation, you'd argue, were play-it-safe in terms of graphics, rather than in
revolutionary 3D.
Quote:
Well, imo, Fahrenheit has lousy graphics quality compared to, say, Splinter Cell: CT or Half-Life 2. That the graphics quality must have been decidedly considered further down the list of priorties most likely has to do with where the beef of the game was focused on by David Cage - i.e., the story, character development, and the overall quality of the experience, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY making the game accessible by as many people as possible. Which meant that the PS2 is the common denominator of all platform versions of the game (more people own a PS2 than an Xbox and a top of the line PC).
It's definitely possible to scale up the graphics to the quality of HL2 or SC:CT, but Cage and Atari must have thought the number of potential audience would be severely cut down.
|
Fair enough, but none of these apply to
Myst. It was not designed for consoles, the marketability is almost certain, and, at least according to people like Ninth whose opinion I learnt to value, lowering the graphics quality didn't help to improve the game in other areas like the story or the puzzles. (And I never said
Fahrenheit looked bad, so why I am writing this at all?)
