I don't think graphics matter this much these days, back in the day, it was about being less crappy so you could actually recognize what you're looking at. Now it's more about shadows and lightning and such, "omg this has 9000 more polygons!!" effect is kinda dumbed down, because almost any game nowadays has great graphics. I really enjoyed Borderlands graphics btw, I'm on the same boat with Eltu. The thing is, amazingly realistic graphics CAN have effect on how immersive the game is, while older games have to make up to it by other qualities (such as awesome story, gameplay etc), I think that's why only exceptionally good old games are playable today. Think MGS! Eltu did you get MGS yet? :glol:

I'm purchasing MGS as we speak! :D

As a side note. Interaction with enviroment is very important (physics...). I think, that it's the field where Crysis was excellent. I want to see more games using cryengine3.

awesome! :D don't forget to write down how you liked it, can't tell you whether to save the girl or not, both options are great for you! ;)

agree with what OP said, different graphics suite different game types. And I've never had a problem with graphics of the games I've played in the past.

I think to find a game rendered "unplayable" because it doesn't look pretty (by today's standards) illustrates a pretty shallow gamer. Also, when speaking of artistic direction, it really depends on the genre and feel of the game. For example, whilst I would say that the FPS Doom has dated and less attractive graphics in comparison to the FPS Modern Warfare 2, I'd also say that the 90s Lucas Arts Adventure Game "The Curse of Monkey Island" is much more visually appealing than its modern sequels due to its beautiful hand-drawn art.

The Curse of Monkey Island (1997):
http://comenzarjuego.com/wp-content/...key-island.jpg

Tales of Monkey Island (2009):
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/arti...26545_640w.jpg

More advanced technology doesn't necessarily mean a better-looking game.

Also, graphics should go hand-in-hand with gameplay and/or story. Crysis may be one of the best-looking games to hit the shelves in years, but it still plays like sh*t. Whereas some older games are about as visually appealing as dust but can have me hooked on gameplay alone. That being said, a lot of recent games do manage to balance aesthetic appeal with gameplay/story and a fair amount of my favourite games are relatively recent ones with pretty high-end graphics. For example: Mass Effect 2, Portal, Just Cause 2...

Personally, I do enjoy sparkly, glossy high-end graphics that make my processor squeal with pain - but I'd never settle for aesthetic appeal at the expense of actual gameplay. Just like I'd never let a game's lack of exterior beauty compromise my enjoyment of its genuinely entertaining gameplay.

I think graphics has nothing to do with gameplay so I think its wrong to judge a game just because the graphics dont suit your standards. A good game is good, "bad" graphics or not.

Bump. Sorry Eltu but I have to disagree, a lot. TA's Supreme Commander is soo much better with better graphics.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/15/...1411454020.png
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/819...1411455920.png
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3...0418270420.png
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/966...1411095220.png

But that doesn't mean games with "bad" graphics are horrible. I have FFVII and IX and they're for the PS1.

Dreaming of Pandora is right :P

I DO overall like games with good quality graphics (not even going to say 'good' graphics... things like Nethack or Dwarf Fortress have excellent graphics, which aren't high quality 3D ones)... but sometimes, graphics can be good if they actually fit the game's style, which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be high quality.

tl;dr: I like both types :)

I think I've ranted about this particular subject too much, and now I don't have anything left to say. For example, they've yet to make worthy successor to X-COM 1, which came out in 1994. It demonstrates the fact, that while graphics have improved, they are completely irrelevant, if the gameplay isn't done properly.

Crysis was good for the foliage moving around and the trees breaking, but I really enjoyed Bad Company (or BC2), which I believe had somewhere around 90% of it's environment being destructible. One of my favorite games in a while.

You are missing my point - SupCom does NOT have better graphics - BOTH TA and SupCom has great graphics, that fit into the respective games. The reason for you liking SupCom more, is most likely because SupCom's graphics style fits YOU better. But that doesn't make the graphics itself better or worse.

I agree with you, even though I wouldn't say that graphics has improved. The graphic style has changed, that is all. If it's improved or not has to do with the individual games.

Oh okay I see where you're coming from now. Yeah I agree there. :)

Oh and... when I get my desktop computer working again, we could play some SupCom matches - that would be epic. :D

*giggles with excitment* yay! :D