Graphic Whores.

[dirkdirden]

It seems like Xbox360 and PS3 are both going for the best Graphics and not really focusing on great game play......But Nintindo on the other hand looks like it is going for great gameplay first and good graphics second..........

or are they all graphic whores....what do you guys think.

[Flying Mullet]

I think it's smart for Nintendo to try to distinguish themselves differently in the next generation as you can only go so far with graphics. I do hope innovative (and fun) games appear on the Wii.

[Madame Adequate]

Why is it presumed that making a game with good graphics will result in it being poor in gameplay terms? I remember when Halo came out, it was incredible in graphical terms. It was also the best game I'd played for some time. FFX had amazing graphics - and kickass gameplay. Burnout games have always looked great, and they've always played great as well.

[jorge]

Best gameplay with best graphics: Counter-Strike

Counter-Strike gameplay and graphics is 100x greater than Xbox 360/PS3 and 1000x greater than Nintendo's poor graphics 2/3D games for 10-14 year old kids.

I like FF8/10/11/12 and other games with good graphics, why do you still want to play with FF1 NES graphics?

[Dreddz]

Well, Sony are trying to push gaming, there blu-ray obsession will give game developers a whole lot more possibilities for there games, with nearly 50GB of data to fill, while developers can only go up to about 9-10GB with Xbox and Wii games. And Sony are doing the whole motion sensor thing, just not to the extent as Nintendo. MS are trying real hard with Xbox Live, which is getting gaming alot more online and more like a community.
All companies are trying to do more, give gamers more. I reckon all companies have broken through what gaming originally was before.

[Erdrick Holmes]

Gameplay is a million times better than graphics. End of story.

[fantasyjunkie]

I prefer gameplay over graphics any day of the week

[ljkkjlcm9]

Well, Sony are trying to push gaming, there blu-ray obsession will give game developers a whole lot more possibilities for there games, with nearly 50GB of data to fill, while developers can only go up to about 9-10GB with Xbox and Wii games. And Sony are doing the whole motion sensor thing, just not to the extent as Nintendo. MS are trying real hard with Xbox Live, which is getting gaming alot more online and more like a community.
All companies are trying to do more, give gamers more. I reckon all companies have broken through what gaming originally was before.
the sony motion sensing isn't on nearly the same level as the Wii, and it's completely because of the Wii that it was even created.

When it all comes down to it, it's about the games. I mean, I still think the best games ever were on SNES and those do not have the best graphics. SNES was the best system ever, to date, all because of the great and memorable games. It's gameplay all the way, screw graphics.

THE JACKEL

[Old Manus]

Graphics do make a great game. I would have liked {insert ps1 game} a lot more if it had PS3 graphics. 'OmG were goin 4 gaEmplay ovr grafix' is just compensating for small penises.

[dirkdirden]

Why is it presumed that making a game with good graphics will result in it being poor in gameplay terms? I remember when Halo came out, it was incredible in graphical terms. It was also the best game I'd played for some time. FFX had amazing graphics - and kickass gameplay. Burnout games have always looked great, and they've always played great as well.

Halo and FFX are two examples of games that used both good graphics and game play........Burn out doesn't play great....1 hour and that game is boring and I'm done playing and burnouts graphics were no ware near top notch.

Is most case but not all they either focus on game play or they focus on graphics.......Good games focus on both.....but most Good games don't come out untill the system is a few years old becuase good games take years to make


Graphics do make a great game. I would have liked {insert ps1 game} a lot more if it had PS3 graphics. 'OmG were goin 4 gaEmplay ovr grafix' is just compensating for small penises.

wouldn't it make since the other way around......People by games for graphics becuase they are over compensating for there lackings.

[Yamaneko]

It depends on the genre. All FPS MUST have good graphics these days, regardless of how good its gameplay or story is. People will not play those games with crappy graphics. RPGs (although this is changing -- thanks Oblivion), RTSs, and other like genres are less dependent on graphics.

[jorge]

I will not play FF7-FF12 if they has NES graphics. What's the point of staying with old NES graphics? If there's no good graphics, then there will be no online FPS games like Counter-Strike. You want to kick FPS games out and play only crappy graphic games?

[Slothy]

This idea that Microsoft and Sony are competing on graphics is absurd. With more powerful consoles come more opportunity for newer and better gameplay. Better graphics is merely a side effect. More powerful hardware also leads to things like better AI, larger and more detailed worlds, more interaction with objects in those worlds, etc. The people who claim consoles try to compete on graphics alone are the ones who never consider the things that aren't immediately apparent from seeing screenshots or watching videos on the internet. They fail to realize just how many other aspects of game design can benefit from more powerful hardware.

The example I like to use is HL2. If all you ever see is screenshots, you'll just think that Valve went out and tried to out-pretty the competition. You'll fail to realize that the game contains great AI, level design, and most importantly, physics based gameplay that is not only the first real advancement in the genre I've seen in several years, but would have been utterly impossible for a game running on a computer from 5 years ago (at least any computer your average person could afford).

[Madame Adequate]

Why is it presumed that making a game with good graphics will result in it being poor in gameplay terms? I remember when Halo came out, it was incredible in graphical terms. It was also the best game I'd played for some time. FFX had amazing graphics - and kickass gameplay. Burnout games have always looked great, and they've always played great as well.

Halo and FFX are two examples of games that used both good graphics and game play........Burn out doesn't play great....1 hour and that game is boring and I'm done playing and burnouts graphics were no ware near top notch.

Is most case but not all they either focus on game play or they focus on graphics.......Good games focus on both.....but most Good games don't come out untill the system is a few years old becuase good games take years to make

I rather like Burnout myself, and graphically it really is accomplished. As to your second point, I think you're misunderstanding the process - it does take awhile to make any game, good or otherwise, but better games tend to come out later in a console's lifespan because the developers have had the chance to get to grips with the hardware.

[KentaRawr!]

I'm not sure what to say. I am most impressed with the Wii, as a new type of controller is ACTUALLY impressing people. Not only that, but the concept is so odd, and yet so cool. :O The PS3 and X-Box 360 are very powerful systems, though. They're just following the trend. Make a more powerful system to impress people. In a way, however, Nintendo is following their trend. With each new console they make, there's always something different about the controller. With the NES, it was the D-Pad and Buttons set-up. With the SNES, there were 2 more face buttons and shoulder buttons. With the N64, an Analog Stick was used seriously. With the GC, ... the Shoulder Buttons did different things depending on how hard you pressed them. That last one was stupid. :O This time, they are just doing the same thing. Doing something different. The lack of graphical capabilities was probably just to keep the price lower. Sony had said before that they knew their console was going to be expensive and that they expected their fans to work for it. So, Nintendo figured that Graphics weren't neccessary. Or perhaps they merely said that to glorify the fact that the console is going to be cheaper. Either way, this is the same thing as before. Nintendo is doing something different, and other companies will follow if it's succesful.

[Chris]

Personally, I prefer a nice balance between the two. But to be completely honest, I prefer to play my handheld system over any console.

[Markus. D]

I just really want Devil May Cry 4....

I R SPESHIL?

[Erdrick Holmes]

On the subject on graphics V gameplay.

I learned SNK/Playmore and Sega were working on getting the latest Metal Slug game to the Wii. The thing is they decided to use the Wii controller for aiming. Meaning you point the controller in the direction you want to shoot, this is a bad idea if you know what the Metal Slug games are like.

[KentaRawr!]

On the subject on graphics V gameplay.

I learned SNK/Playmore and Sega were working on getting the latest Metal Slug game to the Wii. The thing is they decided to use the Wii controller for aiming. Meaning you point the controller in the direction you want to shoot, this is a bad idea if you know what the Metal Slug games are like.


My god... I have played Metal Slug, and I must admit, that is the worst idea I have ever heard of. :O Normal Metal Slug option kthxby.

And I thought they just decided to develop for the Wii because they suspected it would be more popular... :mad:

[ZeZipster]

Let's face it: if graphics didn't matter, we all would still be playing SNES games just for the value. Or maybe even RuneScape. We all know how much gameplay RuneScape has, let's ignore the horrific graphics. I think there happens to be more variables than gameplay and graphics. Personally, I hated FF8 because of "gun blades" and other corny things that were rampant in the game. Gameplay and graphics never even came into perspective. It could have been entertaining for days and graphically enthralling but I won't ever know.

Between the PS3 and Xbox 360 or a Wii, I'd take the Xbox or PS3. I'd take the Xbox 360/PS3. Nintendo has yet again catered towards the parents who will be paying for the console as opposed to adults/teens who play games. Nothing has changed as far as I'm concerned.

The PS3 isn't going for just graphics BTW. They've got it all, bucko. Including that motion-sensing remote. Basically, it's 360 and Wii versus PS3. This (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/11/1632215) article has something about Microsoft siding with Nintendo (IDK what Nintendo's response was). Neither can compete with it alone as far as hardware. There's also that possibility that the PS3 will have more 3rd-party developers than Micrsoft and Nintendo combined again. Although, there's also the possibility that the PS3 falls flat on it's face.

[DeathKnight]

Gameplay is a million times better than graphics. End of story.

*points to Super Smash Brothers: Brawl" Now THAT'S a game.

[NeoCracker]

From what I understand Nintendo is again building up its third party game library, and here is my version of Microsoft asking nintedo for an allience.

Micro: Our system sucks, help us beat the PS3!
Nintendo: Bark like a dog,
Micro: What?
Nintendo: You heard me, Bark like a dog.
Micro: Um, Woof?
Nintendo: Now do a jig.
Micro: Whats a Jig?
Nintedo: Do it!
Micro: Okay, *does Jig* so will you help us?
Nintendo: No, Mwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[KentaRawr!]

The PS3 isn't going for just graphics BTW. They've got it all, bucko. Including that motion-sensing remote *Kentarou stops listening*.

ZeZipster, I am sorry to say, Sony does not have a motion-sensing remote. They have a tilt-sensing controller. >_>

[Millia Billia]

They all care about graphics, or they wouldn't be spending the tons of money it cost to develop more visually capable hardware. I never did understand what everyone's problem with good graphics was...is it really that bad for something to look nice?

My advice is to stick to playing old games only if good graphics really bother your eyes that much. Also, in my opinion, Nintendo has been slowly sliding downward since the release of the N64 and now they're just plummiting...all the Nintendo fans (myself being a former) are like "Oh yeah Nintendo is distinqushing itself by being innovative and caring about the games and gameplay!" when in accuality they're just making pointless things that are different and unnecessary to draw the attention of the few that care about the gaming unit more than the games on it. The Nintendo DS is the prime example of this.

Not to say Nintendo won't completely come back in all their glory with the Revolution/Wii/Whatever it's called now, but from what I'm seeing it just looks like they're doing a bunch of pointless things (more than ever now) and I've yet to hear any primary concern directed toward titles, whereas I've heard (and seen) of Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy XIII, Killzone 2, and many other upcoming PS3 titles that are looking like they will be very fun...and insanely pretty.

XBOX 360 is something I really couldn't care less about, frankly.

[Tidus Andronicus]

Well, even if its just my opinion... Nintendo is focusing on gameplay first, graphics second.

While some of you claim the features of Nintendo's controller are pointless... You shouldn't disregard the purpose of those features... Nintendo's ultimate goal is to enhance gameplay. By creating a controller that requires the player to move interactively with the game, while having force feedback rumble, and the depth of sound speaker... They are effectively putting the player much closer into the game, than ever before in the home console market. Game immersion at its finest.
The DS's touch screen, and the interactive play it created, was only a small step in the right direction, while the Wii will be the full distance, or at least almost there.

Yes, graphics have mattered over the last 20 years of gaming... but we've now reached a point where graphics will start to play far less of a roll in determining a console's popularity, and enjoyment.
Graphics on all systems are capable of recreating almost any scene imaginable... and while not 'photo-realistic' yet, the steps we will see approching that goal, will be small for all consoles... as current technological advances can only go so far each generation.
Each generation from now on, will appear to have less and less of a jump, in terms of graphics... because of how close we are getting to the visual peek.

Back years ago, in the early days of the Sega Saturn, the N64, and the PS1, console gaming had made the huge jump into 3D... This was the golden age for many graphics fans, as this was when the upgrades in graphics were the most noticeable... The jump after that was good but not quite as impressive, gameplay was practically the same, and we only got better as far as the polygons and textures where conserned.
And now today, is the jump is into HD for some, which visually is nice, but the gameplay for most, will be exactly the same as the last generation, with little to no improvement to how we actually play the games. Not to mention that most of us will still be seeing it on SD tvs... So really all we are seeing is a slight improvement in poly count, which these days is too high to even care about... and more detailed textures of course. But even so, gameplay remains the same... at least on 2 of the major consoles.

The only places left to go, when the focus on graphics is shrinking, is either in other features not related to gaming(where Sony and MS seem to be going)... or focusing on gameplay and immersion. Nintendo is taking the latter path, because they are a company that only works on and with games. Unlike Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo is souly based in games, they do not have seperate departments based in computers, or electronics. All Nintendo works on, is gaming! It's all they know, and its all they love to do. Which is why people should stop doubting Nintendo's abilities, because Nintendo knows what they are doing, they've done it for over 20 years, and its all they do! If you've been working hard on something for 20 years, I'd bet you'd get very good at it too! ^_~
Anyway, Nintendo's focus this next generation will be tword gameplay, instead of graphics... Yes, they have improved their graphics a bit to give us something a little new to wow our eyes... but they are mainly working with how we will control the games, and how we will feel the games.
Some people worry that Nintendo is focusing to heavilly on becoming one of those living room 'motion arcade' companies... which isn't true at all. While they do offer some games that will be like that, in a silly kind of way... They are maintaining the games that the hardcore croud will enjoy, upgrading the play and feel of the game, without making it silly... changing analog sticks into tilt and point, changing unnessissary extra buttons/combos into motions and shakes, in such a way as to replicate how you might move as if you were really in the game. And its sometimes hard to grasp just how amazing that 'in the Wiimote' speaker is going to be. Finally you'll be able to hear things that you do with your hands in game, and hear sounds that happen near to you, vs sounds that happen near what your looking at. The prospect of hearing an arrow shoot from your hand into the screen to kill an enemy, is mouth... or should I say ear... well I can't say ear watering, that would just be silly... anyway, you get my meaning... XD

Touching is good, and playing = believing.
Never underestimate Nintendo!

[dirkdirden]

Some of you are missing the point and need some clarification

Making any game is a balancing act between

Total Times
Graphics
Gameplay
Story
Functionality

And so on.

Lets say you have 2 years to make the game. A game that is primarily focused on graphics "A graphics whore" like --full auto, rumble rosesxx, fifa 06, perfect Dark Zero and so on. would sped there time like this

Total Time -- 24 months
Graphics --18 months
Gameplay -- 2 months
Story -- 2 months
Functionality -- 2 months

Now a GOOD GAME will focus there time evenly. Example of how halo would have looked when they made the game.

Total Time -- 24 months
Graphics --6 months
Gameplay -- 6 months
Story -- 6 months
Functionality -- 6 months

And a Game like Super Smash Brother would look like this

Total Time -- 24 months
Graphics --2 months
Gameplay -- 18 months
Story -- 2 months
Functionality -- 2 months

You can replace Time with Money or Resources and it will prove the same point.

And by the way all the REALLY good games increase the Time and Money and Resources in order to get the BEST graphics and the BEST game play. Example of that would be.

ZELDA 64
Total Time -- 48 months
Graphics --12 months
Gameplay -- 12 months
Story -- 12 months
Functionality -- 12 months

And as I was saying I think that Sony and Xbox are putting most there resources into Graphics were Nintendo is putting there resources on Gameplay....

Yes there are a few exceptions......Yes I know that both XBOX and SONY are making games that have good gamePlay. But a big chunk of the games are just make to show there graphic capabilities, and Nintendo isn’t really doing that as much.

[ljkkjlcm9]

I'd like to say both Microsoft AND Sony think people will be buying the Wii....
http://www.planetgamecube.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=11578

News Article: Microsoft and Sony Unite to Support the Wii
News Date: 05/15/2006 16:18:04
Source: www.gamesindustry.biz
Link: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17005
Discuss it in TalkBack! [40 Comments.]

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

Nintendo has recently been barraged with kind comments by its closest competitors, Microsoft and Sony. During an interview with Reuters at E3 last week, Microsoft's Corporate Vice President, Peter Moore, made a swipe at Sony saying, "Tell me why you would buy a $600 PS3? People are ... going to buy an Xbox and they're going to buy a Wii ... for the price of one PS3. People will always gravitate toward a competitively priced product -- like what I believe Wii will be -- with innovative new designs and great intellectual property like Mario, Zelda and Metroid."

Sony, for their part, responded to Microsoft's barb in an interview with GamePro. "I think Peter Moore is exactly right," said Sony exec, Phil Harrison. "I think Nintendo will be the second system consumers purchase after PlayStation 3. I haven't had a chance to check out the Wii myself, but Nintendo has a great history of innovation and has always done great things for gaming and long may they do so."

Stan says: Given these gracious comments, there can only be one logical outcome: everyone who buys a PS3 or a 360 will own a Wii--in essence making everyone's second choice the number one selling console. One can only assume that if Microsoft and Sony continue this trend, Nintendo may hardly need to advertise. It's possible Nintendo's "Blue Ocean" strategy may be working better than expected, as it seems to have encompassed the competition.


as Stan said, it seems like if both companies think the Wii will be bought with their system, it would be the #1 selling console.... and it' not cause of graphics, it's because of the innovative gameplay.

THE JACKEL

[Gnostic Yevon]

I don't think the problem is graphics at all.

The problem is the focus on graphics at the expense of everything else. That's the problem. I'm tired of game makers who load the game up with pointless FMVs just to show off their alleged movie-making ability. I'm tired of having games shipped bearly playable, yet getting lots of hype because of graphics. Basicly, the problem is that game-makers are using kewl graphics to sell the game, yet they always seem to forget that they're supposed to be making a game. I think that's why the old SNES/NES games were so much fun -- the capabilities of the system were low, so you couldn't distinguish the game by merely making it look good. It had to actually be good to get attention. So once they got the graphics up to 16-bit standards, they went to work on the game.

I can't imagine that FF1 sold on graphics alone, or even with graphics as the main selling point. It's 8-bit, so they spent most of the time making the game fun, rather than wasting tons of time on graphics.

[Madame Adequate]

ZELDA 64
Total Time -- 48 months
Graphics --12 months
Gameplay -- 12 months
Story -- 12 months
Functionality -- 12 months

What are you smoking?

Though your point is overly simplified, I see what you're saying. Companies do have limited resources, and they'll devote those to different places. However, few companies will actively sacrifice gameplay for graphics - but some companies will be content with average gameplay, whilst pushing for great graphics.

[dirkdirden]

ZELDA 64
Total Time -- 48 months
Graphics --12 months
Gameplay -- 12 months
Story -- 12 months
Functionality -- 12 months

What are you smoking?

Though your point is overly simplified, I see what you're saying. Companies do have limited resources, and they'll devote those to different places. However, few companies will actively sacrifice gameplay for graphics - but some companies will be content with average gameplay, whilst pushing for great graphics.

uuummmm isn't settleing for average gameplay while pushing for great graphics actively sacfificeing gamplay for graphics?????