misslilo wrote:*SIGH*
I have started to grow very weary of a lot of posters over on adventuregamers.com!
Every time a new game comes out or is exected or an article is written about one, they bash it to pieces.
Always so negative!
Alright, I know I - maybe it's not that bad, but it really reaally reeeeeaaaallyy annoys me.
The problem is that Adventure Games are made with yesterday's technology. Take
Culpa Innata, for instance. That's a relatively new Adventure Game released in 2007. It might have a good story, but the graphics are so horrendous that playing it is painful.
Indigo Prophecy and
Dreamfall had better graphics and those two games were released in 2005 and 2006. I realize graphics aren't everything (I even said as much when ranting about the Wii), but a game created in 2007 should be playable at resolutions beyond what was considered modern in the late 1990s.
I'm not joking, either.
There's two options for graphics: High and low. That's it -- there's no advanced option tab and the ability to pick individual resolutions is completely absent. You can turn anti-aliasing on or off, but it doesn't seem to do anything. The high resolution is a laughable 1024x768 and the low resolution runs at 800x600, a graphical setting common in the mid-to-late 90s. To put this into perspective, I was playing at 1024x768 in 1997. A game released ten years later should at least offer something beyond that.
I know many here play older games with graphics set at VGA (or in some cases, EGA), but those titles have an excuse! They were made at a time when VGA or EGA was the best available. Comparing any of those games -- graphically speaking -- to a modern game would be completely unfair.
An Adventure Game made in 2007, however, has no excuse whatsoever.
Perhaps the above is one reason why many reviews in this genre are negative. I know I'd give a very poor rating to a game that didn't at least offer 1280x1024. Even that's considered a somewhat low resolution today, but at least it'd be a setting used within the current decade.