Games vary so much in graphics. WHY????? Some games look like CRAP, other like Ancient Frog, just seen screenshots game looks BORING, and the bike race one are AMAZING. On things like PS2 all graphics are about the same. Why don't devs use all of the iphones potential??
Because not all devs can get an XBOX 360 engine and port it to iPhone to make a really good visually looking game.
But, like for example, cops and robbers could be way better. And its made by a big company! Why isn't it as good as the dirt racing game or anything. Both big companies -- one tries the other doesnt??
It looks pretty good. Each game is diferent. Some have accurate physics, bit less quality graphics. Some people have more resources. The bike game might be visually stunning but is lacking other things. See the point? Graphics can be great........but are not the only thing.
It cost money to make great looking games. small devs can't make every game look like a dreamcast or ps2 game.
Yeah, just wondering why there is such a big range, even among big companies, like some try and others dont. On ps2 all the games look about in the same range of graphics
Umm no, graphics are almost everything besides gameplay. You can't play an ugly game and enjoy it can you?
I find Ancient Frog's graphics quite exciting, taste varies and that is why there are different options for different people.
Everyone who bought and enjoyed Animal Crossing on Gamecube disagrees with you. Same deal with everyone who bought the GTA games on PS2 and XBox (because, y'know, the GTA games were NOT exactly graphical showcases).
I think Animal Crossing had nice graphics. It looked nice and suited the genre. There does seem to a certain snobbery with some of the gaming community, who like to claim that 'graphics don't matter'. Of course, it's possible to enjoy a game that you don't find aesthetically pleasing, but it's almost certainly the case that the same game with nicer graphics would be more enjoyable. Something being aesthetically pleasing is, well, pleasing! Of course, in some instances attempting to make a game a graphical masterpiece can be counter productive. It might have an adverse effect on the game play(e.g. giving a chess game stunning 3D graphics often reduces how easily the game can be played), or can make them less stable/open to a smaller market (I'm thinking of PC games here) and can increase the cost and time of development dramatically. I understand that somewhere a compromise has to be drawn; often a developer will have to chose between focusing upon other aspects of the game instead of the graphical presentation. But that doesn't stop the fact that a game's graphics can have a big impact upon the entertainment value of that game.
