Can you elaborate on this, because that seemed pretty bizarre, like it's opposite day today or something...

You sure do like to turn a perfectly reasonable statement and attach some nonsensical hyperbole on it as a label without providing any substance.

This rings hollow to me, like saying that I have obsession with breathing air.

You do realize that the word animation stems from latin animare=to infuse spirit, to enliven, action of imparting life. And that is exactly what is the function of animation in games?

Your mentality is very strange to me, and I guess, to the general public who buys games, too.

Heh, it's ironic to use Kings Bounty as an example of how animation is required.. the original had eye-bleedingly bad animations that I can still remember well over a decade later. 

Hertz, don't be worried about it.  There have been several dev quotes about small details being visible at extreme zoom levels, such as squirrels and so forth, which should mean that the gameworld doesn't look static.  I hope it looks a good deal better than KB:TL, though which is quite ordinary looking and overinspired by Warcraft 3.

As long as what is important remains clearly visible, then I won't have any complaints.

Heh, don't mention Civ, I miss 2d.

Patently absurd is a perfectly reasonable addition.  As has been explained to you many times, by many people, 4X games place less emphasis on graphics than other games.  So saying that they are important especially for a 4X game is absurd.

I have decided that you would make an excellent politician, what with your ability to warp the meaning of words. I wasn't aware that "fringe" had gained a new meaning. So when almost everyone agrees with you, it means that you have a "fringe mentality." I guess that means everyone on these forums except for you is on the "fringe" because we don't need super fancy graphics and would rather have good gameplay. And I guess that when you're the target audience for this game you're also on the "fringe."

Crysis>Tribes 2 in graphics. Crysis is a beautiful looking game.

Crysis<Tribes 2 in gameplay. Tribes 2 is just that much more fun, despite people having maybe half a dozen polygons for a face.

And no, gameplay does not equal graphics. Otherwise all we would have is boring Crysis clones. Seriously, what you are asking for is to make the same game over and over again, with slightly better graphics. If you had your way, there wouldn't be a 4x genre. There would be Crysis.

Dishonesty is annoying.

First, graphics is not animation, visuals=graphics+animation.

Second, visuals make the gameplay happen. Your narrow definition of what visuals means is your problem. For example Plants vs Zombies is a brilliant game, and it wouldn't be so without a specific kind of visuals, the same can be said for Defense Grid: The Awakening(also high level of animation).

The theme of the game is the main criteria as to deciding whether visuals is successful or not within that theme, at this point in games development there is no basis for not having a high level quality of visuals in a game like Elemental, because the field in which it wishes to operate has already high standards, and anything less would make the game look regressive, outdated and unenjoyable because our perception has already gone through accustomization process to those standards.

Third, your Tribes 2/Crysis comparison is a total failure since it's based on a subjective opinion(completely faulty and unwarranted I might add) and an argument from popularity fallacy(which is btw heavy on the Crysis side).

Wow, that's so fu**cking dumb and dishonest.

Seriously, people on the internet just argue for the sake of arguing and being contrarians without a cause...

Hortz are you Bill O'reilly ?

Good point hortz! Plants VS Zombies is a perfect example of a great game with mediocre graphics! Pointing our defense grid: the awakening as an example of a terrible game that has amazing graphics and yet sold far more poorly continues to support your position!

By the way, if the "popularity fallacy" is inadequate to measure a games quality (of course, why measure a games quality by how well it sells? Sales mean NOTHING!) how exactly does one measure a games quality if not subjectively? Shall we use the Hortz-ometer? I do believe I have PWNED you, my logically faulty friend

The field in which TBS games operates has "high level visuals"? Really? Are you basing this solely off of kings bounty? The visuals look up to par when compared to civ4 or say empire total war (Civ4 btw continues to sell well years after its release. The far more "shiny" looking empires having long ago been abandoned due to its shoddy gameplay). And I like the generalized statement that everyone has become accustomed to cerain standards! Your argueing against a huge group of people who obviusly have not my friend.

Someone from SD should seriusly close this topic. It's now just become a troll feeding ground.

And gameplay != graphics....you negate your argument ('the importance of graphics') the moment you attempt to force that point. Graphics increase market appeal, certainly. It's difficult having a successful game that dosent wow your audience graphically....but again, GC2 did fine and, looking back, it looks absolutly ancient. What sold it was the gameplay, the fun things you DO, the INTERACTION between game and player. Graphics add to the immersion, but they are not what makes a GAME fun.

If the core gameplay is fun with ascii characters, it'll gain some enjoyability with pretty gfx.

If a game is a turd in it's own right, pretty graphics won't make it stink any less.

Now can we please move on.

ps. I'm glad you're enjoying the graphics more (per subject). We certainly don't mind being held to a higher standard...all we ask is to withhold final judgement until the game has been...you know...finalized.

edit: I see Boogiebac already addressed all this so feel free to disregard.

This is what I find funny - you make disparaging remarks about other people's intelleigence and yet you clearly don't understand the difference betweem gameplay and visuals. Did you ever play battle chess. The gameplay is exactly like regular chess, but the animations make it a unique experience.

However, some people, after they had seen all of the animations a few times, got sick of playing it and would turn the animations off because they basically wanted to play a game of chess. The eye candy was interesting for the first few games but after a while it actually became a distraction and an annoyance.

Just in case you have missed the point, the underlying game of chess is the gameplay, and is identical with or without the animations. And no one here wants EWOM to be ugly or is arguing against animations. What they are saying (and I really believe you understand this) is that the underlying rules of the game, the AI and so forth is a higher priority to them than the visuals. That was a polite response and I refrained from a lot of the snarky comments I wanted to make. So if you respond, Hortz, please show a little restraint and make your arguments rationally.

Of course, like in King's Bounty: The Legend where a number represents how many units are in a tile...