3DS Forum

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

Showing 81 to 100 of 142

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Bankai

81. Posted:

Mickeymac wrote:

JTCPingas09 wrote:

If I really wanted better graphics, I would just play on my PC.

You really weren't listening to what Waltz was saying were you? To summerize, technical prowess does not equal good graphics. Aesthetics, art style, etc. is what graphics are really all about. It doesn't matter what platform your using, if it doesn't have proper aesthetics, it's not gonna look good. I'm curious now as to why so many people like to associate the two as the same thing? Even I used to do the same thing, but then again, I never really looked up the word to see what it really meant.

I did as well. But then I did a course at uni on aesthetics, and realised that it was aesthetics that made a game visually pleasing, not technical grunt. And then I realised that the games I couldn't play on the PlayStation/ SNES any longer (for instance, I can't play Doom any longer, and can barely handle Final Fantasy VII), even if I loved them at the time, was because they had poor aesthetics.

And then I understood just how important aesthetics were in making a good game.

Digitally Downloaded - best darned game site on the web ;-)

AuthorMessage
Avatar

KaiserGX

82. Posted:

Isn't that opinion though?

Kachou on!

3DS Friend Code: 4296-4029-9396 | Nintendo Network ID: KaiserGX

AuthorMessage
AvatarAdmin

theblackdragon

83. Posted:

@Kaiser: It's not opinion, just semantics.

BEST THREAD EVER
future of NL >:3
[16:43] James: I should learn these site rules more clearly
[16:44] LztheBlehBird: James doesn't know the rules? For shame!!!
[16:44] Vintage: We have rules?
[16:44] Reala: don't expose the staff to sunlight, don't get them wet and don't feed them after midnight

3DS Friend Code: 3136-6802-7042 | Nintendo Network ID: gentlemen_cat | Twitter: theblackdragon

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Bankai

84. Posted:

KaiserGX wrote:

Isn't that opinion though?

What? No.

The most applicable dictionary.com definition of "graphic" is "a computer-generated image."

"Quality graphics" therefore means "quality computer-generated images" paraphrasable to "quality images"

"quality images" means "aesthetically pleasing images"

Therefore the study of game graphics is also, in great part, the study of aesthetics.

@tbd: Yeah, it's semantics, but in this case, it's an important distinction to make.

Edited on by Bankai

Digitally Downloaded - best darned game site on the web ;-)

AuthorMessage
Avatar

astarisborn94

85. Posted:

To me, game play always take priority over visuals If you don't have good game play, you are not going to satisfy your customers.

However, a combination of both can be downright amazing. See the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. It had a fantastic mesh of visuals and game play, resulting in a very high-caliber line-up and compared to the Wii and NES, shovelware is not a huge issue. You can simply pick a game that sounds interesting to you and chances are, it will be fantastic. That is why I highly desire to build my SNES collection from a measly three games (Possibly four, but Cool Spot is missing in action, so I'll probably have to buy that again).

astarisborn94

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Bankai

86. Posted:

The SNES had a tonne of shovelware. It's just that nostalgia thing speaking.

Digitally Downloaded - best darned game site on the web ;-)

AuthorMessage
Avatar

JTC-Pingas

87. Posted:

Mickeymac wrote:

JTCPingas09 wrote:

If I really wanted better graphics, I would just play on my PC.

You really weren't listening to what Waltz was saying were you? To summerize, technical prowess does not equal good graphics. Aesthetics, art style, etc. is what graphics are really all about. It doesn't matter what platform your using, if it doesn't have proper aesthetics, it's not gonna look good. I'm curious now as to why so many people like to associate the two as the same thing? Even I used to do the same thing, but then again, I never really looked up the word to see what it really meant.

Looks like you assumed that just because I said I would play on a PC if I wanted better graphics, you instantly assumed that ALL PC games have better technical prowess. PC games can have good art direction, aesthetics too. And yes I DID listen to Waltz. I was only saying that if I wanted better graphics, I would play on a PC. :|

JTC-Pingas

AuthorMessage
Avatar

KaiserGX

88. Posted:

I meant this.
Aesthetics (also spelled æsthetics or esthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty. ...

Kachou on!

3DS Friend Code: 4296-4029-9396 | Nintendo Network ID: KaiserGX

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Token_Girl

89. Posted:

To continue the semantics argument, in game design "aesthetics" are not independent of technical prowess. The technical capabilities determine what sort of "computer generated images" are possible. "Quality" in terms of computer generated images can entail not only the aesthetically pleasingness but also the resolution. For example a "high quality" digital camera not only has a good lens to set focus how you want, lighting filters, etc, but it also has a high megapixel count. In games, "graphics" also details with these images in motion, which is, again, able to be executed based on the technical ability of the console.

Yes, I'm the curmudgeon continuing the semantics argument by questioning the definition of "quality."

Edited on by Token_Girl

I am way too lazy to think of something clever.
My Backloggery
Pokemon Platinum FC: 0517 9582 3270
Pokemon SS FC: 4512 4783 5710
Mario Kart DS FC: 4211 7712 2928

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Bankai

90. Posted:

Token Girl wrote:

To continue the semantics argument, in game design aesthetics are not independent of technical prowess. The technical capabilities determine what sort of "computer generated images" are possible. "Quality" in terms of computer generated images can entail not only the aesthetically pleasingness but also the resolution. For example a "high quality" digital camera not only has a good lens to set focus how you want, lighting filters, etc, but it also has a high megapixel count. In games, "graphics" also details with these images in motion, which is, again, able to be executed based on the technical ability of the console.

Yes, I'm the curmudgeon continuing the semantics argument by questioning the definition of "quality."

I agree in that technology allows you to do more.

I'm just pointing out that being able to do more now =/= the consoles of yesteryear were incapable of producing aesthetically pleasing games ("good graphics")

Digitally Downloaded - best darned game site on the web ;-)

AuthorMessage
Avatar

CanisWolfred

91. Posted:

JTCPingas09 wrote:

Mickeymac wrote:

JTCPingas09 wrote:

If I really wanted better graphics, I would just play on my PC.

You really weren't listening to what Waltz was saying were you? To summerize, technical prowess does not equal good graphics. Aesthetics, art style, etc. is what graphics are really all about. It doesn't matter what platform your using, if it doesn't have proper aesthetics, it's not gonna look good. I'm curious now as to why so many people like to associate the two as the same thing? Even I used to do the same thing, but then again, I never really looked up the word to see what it really meant.

Looks like you assumed that just because I said I would play on a PC if I wanted better graphics, you instantly assumed that ALL PC games have better technical prowess. PC games can have good art direction, aesthetics too. And yes I DID listen to Waltz. I was only saying that if I wanted better graphics, I would play on a PC. :|

Well, if you didn't want people to make assumptions, you shouldn't have been so vague, especially since you have yet to explain why you would pick the PC over any other platform for quality graphics. The only advantage PCs have are its plausible technical prowess. Yes there are games on the PC with quality aesthetics, but so do any other platform. How is the PC any different in this regard?

Mecha Wolf Prime

Avid Fan of Anime, Webcomics, and Wolves
My Den - My door is always open....Too bad it's an empty closet.
My DeviantArt - I like to call it "the blank wall"

Wolfrun
Wolfrun Chibi
Scary Wolfrun...
...Scared Wolfrun

Arooo~

AuthorMessage
Avatar

JTC-Pingas

92. Posted:

I don't even know why I even bothered commenting if you're just gonna be so negative Mickeymac.

JTC-Pingas

AuthorMessage
Avatar

CanisWolfred

93. Posted:

JTCPingas09 wrote:

I don't even know why I even bothered commenting if you're just gonna be so negative Mickeymac.

Er, right, sorry for my rudeness. I'll edit that out. But seriously, I'm confused: Why did you point out the PC over anything else if you did mean technical prowess?

Edit: Eh, too late to take back my words now I guess, so I'll just refraim from anymore condecension from now on.

Edited on by CanisWolfred

Mecha Wolf Prime

Avid Fan of Anime, Webcomics, and Wolves
My Den - My door is always open....Too bad it's an empty closet.
My DeviantArt - I like to call it "the blank wall"

Wolfrun
Wolfrun Chibi
Scary Wolfrun...
...Scared Wolfrun

Arooo~

AuthorMessage
AvatarAdmin

theblackdragon

94. Posted:

Mickeymac wrote:

Edit: Eh, too late to take back my words now I guess, so I'll just refraim from anymore condecension from now on.

you bring up a good point, the condescension in here is getting to be pretty intolerable (and not just from you). please, guys, keep in mind that not everyone here on the forums has taken a college course regarding the distinction between whatever it is y'all're arguing (or is even old enough to be out of middle school). cut people some slack.

BEST THREAD EVER
future of NL >:3
[16:43] James: I should learn these site rules more clearly
[16:44] LztheBlehBird: James doesn't know the rules? For shame!!!
[16:44] Vintage: We have rules?
[16:44] Reala: don't expose the staff to sunlight, don't get them wet and don't feed them after midnight

3DS Friend Code: 3136-6802-7042 | Nintendo Network ID: gentlemen_cat | Twitter: theblackdragon

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Caliko

95. Posted:

I think we may be going a little off topic. Wasn't this thread originally about the technical prowess of the 3DS??

Caliko

AuthorMessage
Avatar

CanisWolfred

96. Posted:

@Caliko

You're very right, and looking at the original post:

MoFaJo wrote:

For many years, Nintendo has been big on game play and smaller graphics. Then the 3DS came along. It has absolutely AMAZING graphics! Does this mean the game play could suffer (as far as Nintendo's games go)? Or do you think game play will excel just like it always has? You can also put in whatever comments u may have on the game play/graphics ;-)

Side Note: Which system are the 3DS graphics closest to? Gamecube? Wii? maybe even XBOX 360? or somewhere in between?

...I'm actually rather glad it did. At the very least, it gave use something to talk about for over a week.

To answer the first post yet again, I highly doubt the overall quality of games will go down just because the graphics are good. While there might be a chance that they might run behind schedule because they wasted too much time prettying up the graphics and have to release the game unfinished, or the graphics might exceed to technical limits of the system, those are problems that crop up every generation, and once the developers understand the system better, they become more rare. In other words, the quality might go down at first, but eventually we'll see games as good or better than we're seeing right now. Nintendo especially won't allow such problems to plague their games, that's for sure.

As for how powerful the system is, all I can say is that it's probably closer to the Gamecube but quite as powerful, but I'm basing that solely on intuition and nothing more. I honestly haven't the slightest idea just how powerful the 3DS may be, and I don't think I'm even qualified to speculate.

The biggest topic of discussion that I see is the idea that Nintendo has "always been bigger on gameplay and smaller on graphics". Personally, I find that to be very untrue. Looking back, Nintendo has always made the best-looking games on their systems, and there are very few Nintendo games that don't look good. Plus, until recently, Nintendo has always had systems that were on the upper end of the graphical spectrum of that era, and even now they still make the best looking games on the Wii and DS. I'm sure they'll make the best-looking games on the 3DS, even though I've a strong feeling it'll be the lesser handheld technical-wise of this upcoming generation. Overall, I just don't see how one can claim that Ninty has always been lesser on the graphics, when it seems to me like they usually strike a pretty even compromise (for lack of a better word).

Mecha Wolf Prime

Avid Fan of Anime, Webcomics, and Wolves
My Den - My door is always open....Too bad it's an empty closet.
My DeviantArt - I like to call it "the blank wall"

Wolfrun
Wolfrun Chibi
Scary Wolfrun...
...Scared Wolfrun

Arooo~

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Hardy83

97. Posted:

Nintendo is marketing/sales first, users second.
They talked about gameplay before graphics because they knew they choose an incredibly inferior tech to the PS3 and 360, so it had no choice but to use that defense.
And as nice as the 3DS looks, it's already graphically inferior to many mobile device and most likely to the upcoming PSP2, so it once again will have to use gameplay over graphics, when in fact, graphics play just as important a part in a game as gameplay does.

A good example of marketing first is when Reggie talked about the DSiWare system. They knew they were going to get a micro fraction of the downloadable games compared to PSN and the App store so he talked about how it was quality over quantity. A point obviously proven wrong by the sheer amount of garbage on DSiWare, with the biggest contributor being Nintendo themselves.

This is why you should never listen to the company itself. It's in it's best interest to make you all watery eyed thinking it's the Jesus of system.
The best thing to do is not listen to anyone except your friends who's opinions you value, LOTS of different reviews, and then ultimately getting a handson of the system yourself.

As for me, like I said, all factors of a game are equally important. If I don't like the look of the game, why would I play it? If I don't like the controls, why would I play it? Or buy it even.
Graphics don't have to be super advanced Avatar quality, but just graphically nice and not say.,.Ninjabread man.

Hardy83

AuthorMessage
Avatar

CanisWolfred

98. Posted:

@Hardy83

Well said, mac, especially the part about all factors in a game being equally important. If you ask me, that's something even Nintendo understands. It's just too bad so many gamers have yet to learn that, or at least understand it.

Mecha Wolf Prime

Avid Fan of Anime, Webcomics, and Wolves
My Den - My door is always open....Too bad it's an empty closet.
My DeviantArt - I like to call it "the blank wall"

Wolfrun
Wolfrun Chibi
Scary Wolfrun...
...Scared Wolfrun

Arooo~

AuthorMessage
Avatar

gatygun

99. Posted:

WaltzElf wrote:

I guess anyone who cares more about graphics doesn't care if the gameplay is boring or terrible.

Read the rest of the thread. A game with poor aesthetics is almost certainly going to have terrible gameplay. One affects the other.

Yes, but there are certain aesthetics that you might not be able to pull off without the requisite technical power (or, at least, are done much better after you've reached a certain level of technical power). The NES had games with good graphics, but certainly there are many games out now that could not have been done on the NES or any previous generation system. If the console can't render the game on the screen, you can't make the game. Better graphics capabilities -> larger possible variety of games /= better quality games.

That's not what I was saying at all. I was pointing out that when most people talk about "graphics," then they're actually talking about "technical processing," not graphics at all. They're misusing the term entirely, and this thread is full of it.

Graphics is aesthetics, not technical processing. Every console is equally capable of creating an aesthetically pleasing experience - it doesn't matter if it's the NES or the PS3. The difference is the PS3 has a stronger processor, so it capable of more technically complex data. Which is what most people misunderstand as being "graphics."

Of course there are some aesthetic styles that aren't possible on older consoles, because those styles require more advanced hardware, but this doesn't mean that a game on an older console can't have good aesthetics, and therefore be a good game graphically. It's just that the scope is more limited.

And as I've said numerous times before, using the real definition of graphics - aesthetics - a good game absolutely, 100 per cent, requries it to be good. I can count the number of games that have poor, or broken aesthetics, yet still manage to be a good game on one hand.

I could have miss readed it. you are basically using heavy English there. "not English myself". Correct me if i misinterpreted you.

aesthetics = art style ( its what the concept art looks like, also known as taste )
example: color of the ground, placement of texture to create that art style. color of the texture and position.

graphics = hardware term for all the graphical stuff that needs to be handled ( this isn't aesthetics )
example: texture size / amount of different colors that can be given / resolution blablablabla

They are not equal, not by miles. They are 2 complete different things.

gameplay = everything that a user experience. sound graphics controls etc and even rerunning of the game. ( i dont know why people keep referring towards that gameplay is important but graphics isn't, while graphics is equal important while talking about gameplay ).

Can those nintendo fan boys pls stop posting. I'm sick and tired of hearing "oh look how good the nes was, and look how good the n64. And i dont care about graphics " blablablablabla.

Who gives a crap about all those systems before, we are not living in the past. The wii and the DS where a disgrace towards the nintendo core gamers. graphics is equal important towards gameplay. Nintendo simple screwed you all by providing '95 tech which resulted in horrible outdated graphical system. They massively improved the controls, but slowed down on the graphical level. Which yet again doesn't make the wii any better on gameplay then the xbox 360 or ps3. Because they did the exact same thing. Only graphics = a known gameplay elemental. while different controls simple where not a part of gameplay experience.

There for i blame nintendo overal for holding back on the graphical department. Specially now xbox and sony throws out motion control stuff. While the wii2 is nowhere to be seen yet.

Anyway, anybody saying that graphics = overrated or shouldn't be a point to pay attention towards = just a massive nintendo fanboy moron. Which holds nintendo back from creating what they did with the 3DS.

god bless that nintendo finallllly realised that gameplay isn't all about controls and story's and art styles.
Its about graphics too.

The 3DS gives a complete new online system = better experience
the 3DS gives a new controlling option = better experience
the 3DS gives 3D effect = adding depth = better navigation = better experience
the 3DS gives a better graphical system = better experience
the 3ds gets a better sound chip = better experience
the 3DS gets a more pixeled screen = better experience

All these things effect the gameplay. Not just 1 or 2 things.

Edited on by gatygun

gatygun

AuthorMessage
Avatar

HolyMackerel

100. Posted:

gatygun wrote:

The wii and the DS where a disgrace towards the nintendo core gamers. graphics is equal important towards gameplay. Nintendo simple screwed you all by providing '95 tech which resulted in horrible outdated graphical system. They massively improved the controls, but slowed down on the graphical level. Which yet again doesn't make the wii any better on gameplay then the xbox 360 or ps3. Because they did the exact same thing. Only graphics = a known gameplay elemental. while different controls simple where not a part of gameplay experience.

There for i blame nintendo overal for holding back on the graphical department. Specially now xbox and sony throws out motion control stuff. While the wii2 is nowhere to be seen yet.

Several things:

1. The DS was more powerful than any handheld game device before it. It was fairly cutting-edge tech for a portable machine... back in 2004 when it was released. It's old now, in case you hadn't noticed. That's why its games don't look good anymore.

2. The Wii is more powerful than any of the last-gen consoles. (Gamecube, PS2, Xbox, Dreamcast)

3. Controls affect gameplay. In fact, they are the biggest factor affecting gameplay, above all else. Controls are how you play the game.

4. You've entirely missed the distinction we've been making that graphical power is not the same as aesthetics/art direction. (But then you said it yourself, so I'm not quite following your line of thought.) What many have been saying is that even with bad graphics, a game can look good. People have not been demanding that Nintendo use old technology because that looks better, or something stupid like that.

5. Maybe you missed the posts directly preceding yours, because the most recent conclusion of this thread is that all aspects of a game are important: gameplay, visuals, sound, everything. Games are a complete package and shouldn't be judged by one aspect alone.

@Hardy83 Has it been confirmed that the 3DS has a weaker graphics processor than devices already on the market? Its graphics look fantastic to me. Got proof? (Not disagreeing, just interested to see the evidence.)

× steam

3DS Friend Code: 4098-3796-9042

Sorry, this topic has been locked.