Personally, I think they are not bad for their time. You can't simply think that a game made in 1998 has bad graphics, because all of the normal PCs from 1998 were too weak for realistic graphics. We think that old games have bad graphics because, every new game has better graphics than the last one. We forget that the game looks realistic for it's own time. And then we start having the illusion that the old game looks bad.
Yes, I do agree that the graphics of the old games aren't very good, because I know that the engine is old. But I am NOT saying that the graphics of the game are bad because "Avatar the game" has better ones (this is something completely wrong).
I think most game developers think about the graphics more than the game-play. Thats why Avatar has bad game-play and good graphics. Which is really bad, mostly because the game is expensive, and when you buy it, you get f**ked.
So, do you agree? Or do you disagree?
P.S. I wander which game is better: Half Life or Avatar?
I hate crappy graphics but avatar has got nice graphics and its boring as hell... i would recommend half life ^_^
Graphics < gameplay, just that simple, and good developers follow this gameplay before graphic mentality. in fact I would say that your friend is just a graphics or action hore instead of actually enjoying the gameplay elements. And so I think there's no possible argument that half-life, the game that essentially invented story in the first person, or story at all in games for that matter, as well as having the first non-scripted AI, beats out avatar any day...
IN my opinion, I believe that graphics really don't matter, I mean they matter to a degree but not as important as whether the game actually works, does it play well, is it enjoyable? Those are the things that really matter when it comes down to it, but you can't disregard graphics entirely.