[color:"orange"] When you can't have brilliant graphics, you have to make it a good game.[/color]
That is certainly true for handheld consoles, and is the reason for the success of the market leader in that field.
TV-consoles are slightly different, unfortunately. They are much more technology driven, as are the PC-games. Actually I have the feeling some are twisting background stories or plot-lines in order to be able to show off the technological achievement. The last 20% in graphics are expensive to develop and program, but they do not really add to the gaming experience (fun) as such.
Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder ( <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />), and I would agree that the media tend to over-value the technology - I fear because it is something they can 'judge' at first glance, whereas the gaming fun takes time to experience - time they often don't have, or take, in their testing - and of course, it is subjective to the individual player.
I wish they would stress more the fun factor, and the quality - that's one of the big digfferences between PC- and console games. As a console game publisher you cannot afford to publish a bug infested game, because there is no, and cannot be, such thing as a patch - you would have to re-issue the game completely. Same is true for re-balancing in the game or add-ons. You must publish a 'complete' product - from the customer, user, player perspective, I prefer that.
