Wow you totally missed the point about the point he was saying. Please try to limit your stupidity in the future.
Now though I don't totally agree with him, as I think the game has good gameplay too, and the graphics just add to it, but for the idiots that can't be bothered to actually read the first post, he isn't saying the graphics on the game are bad, nearly quite the opposite.
He's stating that firstly a game cannot be solely based on a good graphics system, but must integrate good gameplay amongst other things, to make a good playing experience.
He also states that though the graphics are not "bad", it's the fact that when a game goes so hand in hand with realism, and the graphics of the game are so realistic and like real life, they literally become dull, and at a level, I agree with him on this.
It's the fact that the whole reason that we play games is that they aren't like real life. Real life, at many times, is dull and boring. If anyone here has ever played the game The Getaway, I think that's a great example... The graphics on it really made the game a bore for me. Sure they were really realistic, much more realistic than Vice City (it's main opposition at the time) but being set in London, it was all so dull grey and black. Yes it was real, but it was no fun, and I'd much rather be seeing the bright fun graphics of Mario Kart. This is what he means when he says he's rather see 8-BIT oldschool graphics than new, boring stuff.
Now as I said, I don't totally agree, as this game seems to have some sweet gameplay, and not all the graphics seem to be a bore (though I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts)... But I was more posting because some idiots on this thread had absolutely no idea what he meant, and thought he was saying the graphics weren't that good as in they're level of rendering.
