Major game studios spend millions of dollars to cheat hardware requirements so they don't have to develop another console. Most graphics nowadays cut corners so that hardware that's 6 years old can keep up with them. That's why there's so much money being spent into it. If they designed it for up to date, or even 2 years old, hardware, the costs to create the graphics would be significantly reduced. Get your facts straight.

Plus, your definition of good graphics, as stated in your first post, said only realism, retro, or stylized graphics are good. One, this game uses stylized graphics, so you clearly don't know anything about that. Two, you can say 8-bit or 16-bit graphics are good, yet something that served as the transition between "realism" and "retro" is bad? Again, this exhibits no knowledge.

Three, Prince of Persia was good because of innovative gameplay and good platforming. I couldn't care less about the graphics. Graphics are only an issue when it interferes with gameplay, i.e. terrible HUDs, over-bloom, bad cameras, etc. etc. Prince of Persia could of literally been a gelatinous blob in a generic, textureless, 3d world, and it's gameplay would not have suffered.

Your knowledge of graphics is limited to the shallowest of views. If you had any education in game development, which you seem to have little or none based on your statements, you would realize how insignificant graphics are in a game.


Also, I find it amusing how you blame me of distorting your view, then go on to commit the same fallacy yourself in the very next sentence. I have never stated "GOOD GAMES NEED TO LOOK LIKE FESTERING SHIT." I HAVE stated that graphics are the least important aspect of a video game.


And the irony is not lost on me.