Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Games' started by Coded-Dude, Feb 2, 2007.
He raises some interesting points, while maintaining that gameplay is very important.
I have been more addicted to any game based on the gameplay and not the graphics. I've played beautiful looking games, but were not addicted (and sometimes hated them). People need to just put effort into making games that are both beautiful and have amazing gameplay. Is that too much to ask for?
not at all, in fact if graphics didn't matter at all.....most of us would have never upgraded and still be demanding NEW Atari and Commodore games instead of new consoles and games for these new consoles.
I think we get a good number of fun games with good graphics, but it seems like a lot of companies generally end up sacraficing one for the other
Graphics matter to me..I rather enjoy playing a game that is well rounded in all aspects. I'm not saying that I wouldn't play a game that is graphically challenged but when I buy something thats lets say $50-80 I expect the quality as well as the quantity.
Am I wrong to want it all...
i think there is a novelty in both. A game that looks amazing will be cool for a while just on that fact alone even if the game sucks. Like Crysis, if it turns out that game sucks (which i doubt) then people will still buy it for the graphics for a bit then scrap it. The opposite, i think is true. Gameplay with crappy graphics will be fun for a while, probably longer than crap game/good graphics, but could lose out. It needs to be a strong combo of both.
Well said...I agree 100% with what you said.
One isn't exclusive of the other (graphics vs gameplay) and they do need to go hand in hand to have a successful game these days.
Why can't we have both simple and complex graphics in our gameplay? Why does it have to come down to a simple egg-headed argument like this?
I love Atari games because they're simple and great for a 10 minute distraction. (As a side note: I can't stand re-hashes of older games that put in crazy backgrounds that make the gamefield harder to see.)
I loved my N64 (the last console I owned) because, at the time, it had state of the art graphics that sucked me into a whole new world of interactivity.
For goodness sake, will these arguments PLEASE stop! It's not going to change the world. The Wii doesn't have the same power as a xbox 360. OK, we get that. Move on.
calm down this is not an argument buddy, no one is attacking anyone.....
Nvidia, one of the leading graphic companies, has made a fair retrort to a leading console maker's comments.
We are merely discussing our own opinion on the matter.
If you would have read the thread you would see that we are all pretty mush in agreement.
Graphics and Gameplay go hand in hand, while poor gameplay can ruin a franchise more so than poor graphics.
But that it is VERY pleasing to be awestruck by a BEAUTIFUL environment.
meaning.......graphics DO matter.
I would rank gameplay (1) and then graphics (2)
Having said that I would enjoy a game that had better graphics than a game with crap graphics with equal game play.
I just started to play Legend of the Mystical Ninja again for the SNES, and I was hooked, again, for a few hours playing last night.
and that game, though very fun, is by todays standards "graphically challenged"
anyone who says graphix makes a game, hasnt seen sales figures for consoles at all.
Holy cow, one of the VPs at Nvidia, a graphics card maker, says that graphics are very important? Crazy!
Consoles suck, The only reason I ever upgrade my machine or bought a new one was for the graphics. Graphics do matter and its why the console have gotten more expensive and are using much more powerful graphic solutions because they do matter. They arent everything but the statement graphics dont matter is like Bush saying there isnt global warming. Utter nonsense.
I don't think that's what [most] of us are talking about.
We're saying "we like both but we don't need bleeding edge, billion zillion polygon graphics" to equal a good game.
Look at the simple games out there...Geometry Wars comes to mind. One of the most rudimentary/crude 360 games graphically, but the gameplay is there in spades so you play it for hours on end and don't care that it doesn't look as good as Gears of War.
That's the point most of us are trying to make.
I definitely rank gameplay much higher than graphics. That's not to say that I don't appreciate good graphics, I just prefer better gameplay. If a game has great gameplay and great graphics, then I'm just as happy as a clam (considering clams are happy, are they??).
I personally don't need top of the line displays or graphics to have fun. I have a 32 inch Phillips TV with my Wii hooked up using composite cables. It looks just fine to me. And I have a blast playing Wii Sports both with other people or by myself, and those graphics aren't exactly ground-breaking.
Someone on this forum made a comment a while back that struck me. He was asking why we need High Definition to have "realistic" graphics when we can watch a movie on our SD TV using composite cables and have it look more realistic than any game we've ever played. Well, the reason why a movie looks more realistic is obvoiuis, but my take on the point he was trying to make was that the limitations aren't in the displays, it's in the 3D modeling.
Do I appreciate the new Zelda: Twilight Princess 3D model, of course I do, but I still prefer Cell Shading (Zelda: Wind Waker) because of the facial expressions. Even if the character looks like a cartoon, I can relate to it on a higher level due to the emotions the character conveys.
Give me a 3D model that is able to convey proper facial expressions and emotions, then I'll play the game on my SD TV and thank myself for not wasting my money on an HD TV.
Ha, very true...
I think Nintendo's point is that we're good enough currently that they can do what they want without having the experience detracted by bad graphics. His example is a tad extreme - more along the lines of trying to say the Wii went back to C64 graphics while still trying to do FPSs and so on
EDIT: As to "do you really want extreme realism", one of my favourite FPSs of all time is XIII, deliberately cartoony with nice, bright colours
Well, you can also apply that to needing HDTV to watch movies. You can watch them on SDTV sure, but they look a heck of a lot better on HDTV! By that logic we should all be using 1930s black and white sets since you can watch a movie on those, too.
Graphics do matter very much, but in comparison to gameplay it is no question for me that it is not the most important aspect. Clean looking games are important, but without a great level of fun in the gameplay the good looks are nothing. You can't have one without the other, both need to be considered when determining how good a game is.
Graphics are like dating a dumb-as-heck model.
Eventually, you get bored of looking at her and want her to say something that isn't retarded.
That being said, no one wants to date an ugly woman.
I don't think it's a matter of graphics "not mattering at all" and I don't think that is what Nintendo is saying.
I think they are just saying the quality we have now is already enough.
We need to have some mixture.
Perceptually, we can only discern so much. If the action is moving quickly, you hardly need the best graphics because people really won't notice. It's like interviewing bystanders after an accident or a robbery. They rarely remember useful details.
I think that Nintendo was a big mad for eschewing higher resolution graphics but it's certainly not necessary to have the highest resolution. Obviously, a lot of people are having fun with the Wii games and their gameplay, even though the graphics are lower than any other current generation machine.
I was quite impressed with the graphics in Call of Duty 2 on the xbox 360. Myst was beautiful, but the movement was so restrictive that it wasn't that much fun to play.
It definitely has to be a combination of gameplay, graphics, and sound.
Agreed on that. Both graphics and gameplay matter, but in our generation, having top of the line graphics doesn't really matter when you have awesome gameplay. There's a point we hit in the graphics category where you can't really tell the difference and the only difference is in numbers we're pushin. Yea I can see a difference in HD and a regular TV, but that doesn't mean it's worth thousands to get that picture when I'm happy with my current TV. Gameplay is different, you can't really put a price on it.
There's aesthetics and then there's artistic direction and style. Nintendo has proved time and time again they can achieve great atmosphere and artistic style without pushin umpteen million pixels or whatever. Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime come to mind. If they added Xbox 360 or PS3 power behind those games the increase of "fun" and "experience" would've been only marginal. That Taylor guy is obviously just wanting to boast his company with biased opinions.
I was waiting for that kind of response. Not to mean any offense, but that's a pretty silly remark. Just like the NVidia guy saying we can watch 24 on an old black and white monitor.
There are certain standards that we expect, as there always have been, and the standards keep rising. So when someone says "good graphics" I don't imagine pong, even though that was revolutionary for its time.
When I say "good graphics", do you imagine something from the Atari 2600? Because with your logic one could draw that conclusion.
I think our friend kjr39 just won the prize for Best Comment.
I'm a gameplay over graphics guy. I'll happily play away on a SNES or N64 rather than hold one of those horrible 360 controllers. Live For Speed is one of the few PC games I play, while it's graphics can't compare to GTR2, it's miles ahead in gameplay.
I'm a graphics girl. Game has to be half decent but I love pretty pictures
While in my opinion gameplay > graphics (and substance > form in general), I completely agree with the opinion that while good graphics don't make a good game, bad graphics are capable of destroying a great game. Similarly, great graphics can make a good game even better. I don't have any examples to cite, but I'm sure that it's a possibility, and all in all a reality.
I guess it all depends, though, on what you qualify as "good graphics". I certainly don't need 1080p to enjoy Twilight Princess. The gameplay is compelling enough for me to stand on its own. 1080p would make it even more awe-inspiring, and I'd most definitely jump at the chance to witness the game in 1080p on a 90" TV. If it were only playable at 320x240, well then I'd be lying if I said I didn't care.
But more importantly to me, I don't need ultra-hyper-realistic graphics to enjoy a game. Sure, I'd like them. But there's a balance to be had, especially in technology- an evaluation of cost vs "features". There are many niches in technology, and (fortunately) many companies to fill these different segments. So to say that one company is "nonsensical" because it chooses to fill one segment rather than another just doesn't make sense to me.