Point B
Admit it - graphics do have an impact on gameplay. As much as you want to ignore it or call my point out for its stupidity, graphics do have an impact. Are you seriously going to buy a game - no matter the premise or gameplay - if it has stuffty, oh-god-why graphics? No, you're not, so why would you even try to argue that you are?
Why the hell would you ask me a question if you're going to insert your own, clearly incorrect, answer? That's the dumbest stuff you can possibly pull.
I bought CS1.6 in 2009, well over 10 years after the initial release of its base game. The sheer amount of graphical improvements within that timeframe didn't stop me from not buying a "prettier" game. forget off with your idiotic assumptions.
Point C
Probably the final point I'll type tonight, will add more later - Old games lack. Yes. It's true. You like to say it's not, but it's true. Games like Doom lacked in gameplay and didn't make up for it in graphics or design. Doom was pretty much a stereotypical shooter. Maybe one with a different, almost odd POV, but yes, it was about as dynamic as your newest COD game.
The whole "you like to say bleh but it's really blah" stuff seriously shows how much of your head is up your ass.
Where the hell does "dynamism" come up anywhere when referring to Doom as a shooter? You seem to have completely missed the part where Doom as a
first-person shooter does what it needs to and is damn good at it too. "Lacked in gameplay?" You expect something more out of a
shooter where you
shoot things?"Didn't make up for graphics and design" - you're loving stupid. Your use of tense implies it was graphically lacking upon its release, so I'm going to roll with that. News: it wasn't lacking graphically upon its release. As for design, the "boxy room" argument doesn't loving work when you talk about level design. It's not about the way the level looks, it's about the goddamn layout.
