Graphic Whores.
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.
Signature removed for exceeding the 50KB filesize limit. Please refer to the Signature Service thread in the Help Forum for the rules regarding signatures.
~Void
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.
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.
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?
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.
Gameplay is a million times better than graphics. End of story.
I prefer gameplay over graphics any day of the week
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.Originally Posted by Dreddz
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
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.
there was a picture here
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
wouldn't it make since the other way around......People by games for graphics becuase they are over compensating for there lackings.
Last edited by dirkdirden; 05-16-2006 at 09:47 PM.
Signature removed for exceeding the 50KB filesize limit. Please refer to the Signature Service thread in the Help Forum for the rules regarding signatures.
~Void
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.
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?
Last edited by jorge; 05-16-2006 at 10:08 PM.
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).
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.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'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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
