Topic: Gameplay/Graphics: what's it to you?

Good exquisite game graphics are everything to me! And no my eyes don't often hurt from computers and prolonged game play although I do try to go outside and get good clean fresh air and exercise.

'moderation' is the key word, there -- yes, we all got those long warnings packaged in with every game while growing up about not playing for too long and be careful if you're sensitive to bright flashing lights and blah-blah-blah, but how many of us really paid any attention to that? and how many of our parents actually came in once an hour to remind us to do something else for fifteen minutes before playing again (i think that's what the recommendation was last i paid attention to it lol)? 3D images messing with your depth perception is a trickier thing than just staring at a 2D image for prolonged periods of time, i would think; if kids were to play a 3D game for as long as they'll sit in front of a television or their DS watching a 2D show/playing a 2D game, it could do more damage to developing eyes.

Nintendo's handhelds have ALWAYS looked inferior graphically to the other gadgets on the market, yet they were always successful

Gameplay > graphics.

Why else would I play Super Mario Bros.?

The top screenshot was from the 1999 version. The bottom screenshot is from the latest edition available on the 360/PS3/PC

@Hardy83: Regarding your argument about the graphics being equally as important as game play, this I totally disagree on. As almost every core gamer would agree on, game play is what makes a game fun and what convinces most core gamers to anticipate it in the first place. Sure visuals should not be neglected you emphasize on, but I don't think it's as important as the game play. I agree that if games looks like last gen that it's a problem and hits the quality of the game overall, but I'm fine with a game looking that it's hitting the mid-level of a console as long as the game is enjoyable in itself.

Also, graphics =/= the power of the console. They can be a good indicator of how powerful a console can be (At least a top-notch looking game), but not a sole judge of a system.

You sure theyre not from the same game? Asside from some prettier gun models, I can't tell the freakin' difference.

Unless everyone I know is weird, pretty graphics seem to be what draws the most attention. You can't truly appreciate the gameplay until you play the game, but great graphics just need a quick glance to impress. Plus, from my understanding, while it is gameplay that makes the experience fun, it's good graphics and music emphasize that to make the experience epic. Just saying.

I wish people would stop separating graphics and gameplay. One impacts on the other, and there is no such thing as a game that is good because of one isolated element of the game. Either the overall package is good, or the game sucks. Simple as that.

It's not just people, Nintendo is worried too. That's why they gave the warning for children under 7. 3-D viewing won't kill you but it could give you an irreversible eye disorder. Remember when people said video games could help kids train hand-eye coordination? Now video games could help kids train Amblyopia(Lazy eye).

But if you want to throw caution to the wind you might want to look into buying some Gunnar Optiks. http://www.gunnars.com/technology/technology_lensgeometry.php Since I don't know any kid (and few adults) who could moderate themselves to an hour of gaming. I don't know how effective gamer glasses are though and they cost a lot.

Nintendo has to "be worried" or it would face a PR backlash, or even lawsuits.

It's put warnings in it's products since forever for that reason.

If 3D was "that" much of a potential risk, then only an unethical company would put out a 3D product. I personally don't believe Sony and Nintendo are unethical companies, so I'm going to believe that 3D is perfectly safe in moderation until i've seen qualified proof to suggest otherwise.

In short: relax. Nintendo is not an unsafe company by nature.

Graphics is a part of the player experience therefor gameplay = graphics just as much as gameplay = story or sound etc etc.

You cant divide them

Graphics honestly don't matter to me. I still think that Yars' Revenge for the Atari 2600 is one of the best games ever made.

You sure that's not just Nostalgia talking?

They are the same games, but the newer one was "updated" with new graphics, gameplay modes, etc.
Because of the game's memorable gameplay and 3 different campaigns, they decided to release the updated version in the honor of the old version. Kinda like how there is now 2 Goldeneye games.

Not to mention the older Aliens Versus Predator game is $4.99, compared to the new version being $50 or more

Yeah but...both of them look equally good, too.

Besides "Comemorrate" just means they took a popular game and made another game that was similar to it, and coincidentally all 4 games you mentioned also happen to be based on fairly popular or cult franschises.

pc version:

http://img403.imageshack.us/i/avpdx11aufmacher.png

somehow img thing doesn't work. so do it manual

Dunno what you did with the other picture, but that aint the 2010 version sorry.

I've only had the game for a few years, so I doubt it.

I doubt it, too. It looks pretty great, and I don't mean the graphics. But that does remind me why I used to consider Pong the perfect game. No fluff, just gameplay. Granted, Bit.Trip Beat has long since dethrowned it, along with loads of other games, but for a while it was the single most pure and replayable game I had ever experienced.