Imo, graphics from a technial stand point are nice but not the determining factor on whether a game is good or not - be it rpg, actionrpg or full on action.
I finished Drakan a short while back and had a blast with it, despite very aged graphics. I enjoy games like Geneforge and Avernum, which mildly put don't have spectacular graphics.
Gameplay is and will always be king. Graphics are a nice bonus, but a bad game will always be bad - regardless of the graphics.
Btw, why is it I never see "state of the art" in any game? Reviewers love to say that a game looks dated, but rarely offer names of the games that supposedly look good. To be honest - most games look about the same with very minor technical differences. What makes a difference is art direction and the attention spent on that part of the game.
In that regard, art direction can play an important part of setting the mood, which influences how a game is experienced.
For anyone who is a whore to polygon count and extreme texture detail - as if that somehow makes or breaks a game - well I have nothing but a shrug of my shoulders. There are many gaming gems these people will never experience.
-------
With regards to the Witcher and RPGs; It was a great game and very much a role playing game. You played the role as a Witcher. Some people seem to think that RPG automatically involves you remaking yourself into a game character - and that simply isn't true. Role playing means you take on the role of a particular character in a game world and play *their* role. If it so happens that a game offers enough freedom that you can put your own spin on things - that's great, but not necessary to qualify as an RPG.
Sorry, had to throw in my 2 cents on that one too :P
Last edited by ChickenSlayer; 16/10/09 10:22 PM.
