Oh, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Elite Force, but I don't think there was a moment that the Quake engine's scripting and its dodgy collision detection didn't cause some facepalm-worthy moments.

I mean sure there were some clipping issues and scripts getting atuck, but overall it really wasn't that bad. The big benefit to having a known engine is reduction in development time.

My personal hated engine is Unity, too too much system hogging.

How about prettier games WITH better gameplay...but yea

Well, Unity's resource consumption is due largely to its status as a very high-level engine. It doesn't lend itself well to optimisation. It's designed to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to create the game they want, and to facilitate portability.

This in turn means that it's widely considered to be the premier engine for shovelware. It might be an unfair moniker in many ways - it has been used to develop some decent games like Kerbal Space Program and Wasteland 2 - but the difficulty in optimising Unity projects combined with the fact that 98% of the commercial games produced with it are shovelware has meant that the use of the engine is viewed with a certain amount of suspicion.

If prettier is not a requirement, then why not. What's a requirement here is gameplay, I can live without Crysis-level graphics.

BUT in this day and age with the horsepower in todays pc's why not both

Graphics/visuals will never be as important as plot, storyline, playability, character development, etc.

If graphics were the most important thing, most of us would not play the majority of games on GOG.

Classic games are in some ways comparable to classic movies.

I remember Duke Nukem having proper mirrors that reflected your character.

Not everyone has a PC that powerful.

I thought the "mirrors" were just windows to rooms with duplicate sprites that were tied to your movement.

But we aren't talking about old games. They were product of their time.

But...but...the majority of games here are old, hence GOG's name (Good OLD Games).

And even in reference to games that are being released now, I will always believe that things like plot, etc that I named in my previous post are more important than graphics. That's just my personal opinion. YMMV.

considering i end up running most games low to medium, i just want to play the damn game and graphics hardly matter, as long as the game is good, if not everything matters

We went through an period very similar with what's going on right now, at the middle of 90s, when 3D games were a hit and everyone was doing 3D games, even if those specific games were not benefiting at all from the 3D parts.
Now, we're with realistic graphics. They are trying to make games as realistically as possible, but this thing, sometimes, kinda backfire. The controls feels clumsy, as they try to mimic the real movement, environments are too heavy and distracting, there are a lot of A titles that i personally detest and i can't have fun playing them.

I always preferred straight 2D or isometric games, simply because it's harder to go wrong with them. I hate 3rd person view that many modern games opted for, i hate when my view it's blocked by camera movement limitations, i hate invisible walls, i hate getting stuck in things that i shouldn't get stuck. I find a lot of those "modern" games much more frustrating than simpler, older ones. I personally don't understand the point on going into "realistic graphics" this much. It's a game, it shouldn't be realistic, it should allow your imagination to fill the blanks, it should be a pleasure to play, not a hassle in getting over the "modern graphics".