If graphics were better than gameplay then there would be no reason to ever play any game on any older console, or a Wii. Yet, here I am today, still playing atari 2600, nes and gameboy games. Amongst everything between now and then, as well. But my point is, if graphics are better than gameplay, then why am I still play these old-school games? Could it be... because... gameplay > graphics. I think so.

How much better can graphics become? Gameplay does matter as I've played gorgeous looking games that played terribly.

Exactly I don't like how a previous post said Mario galaxy would have worked on NES, ok that's true but Mario galaxy could've been 8-bit if they wanted

I think you're missing the point. The people that say the opposite are trolling. Look at who's saying it.

I'm saying that completely dismissing the graphical capabilities of a system isn't a good idea. If the graphical abilities aren't up to par with a developers vision then that is bad.

You're telling me a game focused on intensive gravity physics would have worked on the NES? Or one with the world sizes as Mario Galaxy?

So is there something you consider the pinnacle of Rhythm Gaming? I play the hell out of games like Stepmania and Rhythm Heaven, but nothing has reached the pinnacle yet in my eyes (especially considering Stepmania is open-source and could easily be improved).

I think there will be some third-party titles that will do well on the Wii U, but we'll have to wait and see about that. And, as people stated, the games on the next 2 consoles will be expensive as hell if we gonna be that much more powerful.

Once computer generated graphics are able to reproduce real life 1:1, then I think that's the wall. There would really be no point in going any further than that.

I don't think anyone is saying that gameplay doesn't matter, but that graphics matter more. The difference between people like us who care more about gameplay, we won't sit through a shoddy game just because it's pretty.

I guess I haven't learned who here are trolls and who aren't. I just react to the text and tend to disregard who says it.
But, yeah. Nintendo does need to keep their systems up to par if they want support from major third parties (Capcom, Konami, etc.). Which upsets me, because they still could have been making great games for the Wii, but simply chose not to because of the lack of graphical capabilities.

@DudeSean I don't think anyone in this thread is honestly saying that. I wouldn't get too worked up about it, I'm pretty sure we all agree with your point.

What in the hell are you lot on about... None of you were good at your GREATER THAN, EQUALS and LESS THANS at school this is how it works...

GRAPHICS > + = PI - < % of the $ worth x E=MC² ± ¾ of ∞ < GAMEPLAY

Guide us with your wisdom, great one.

No. Mainly because any game can always be improved.

Why people use graphics of the NES/whatever era of games to those of the PS3/whatever era of games to compare are idiots.

When playing a game, you don't separate every individual aspect of it.

You play the entire experience.

Graphics are part of that experience.

@Aviator While I agree that you need to look at the game as a whole, I don't see any need to call people idiots because they are making a comparison that you don't like.

Yeah don't make me bring out the psychology text book because I will smack it over some punks head

Well this is a thread on graphics so I was talking about visuals more than extra gameplay ideas. Visually the two games are going for a slightly different look and TBH I'm not sure which one looks better. Plus my point remains, for some games we've already hit a point where going from HD-era power to even the highest end PC right now would make little difference in terms of visuals. Especially if we're only displaying it at 1080p 60Hz.

How long is this graphics fad gonna last?

Kids these days -_-
If your not happy with video games then get a new hobby

Bringing up Mario Galaxy on the NES is silly. Of course it wouldn't work as-is, but how much better would it have been had it been on more powerful hardware? And, how much more would it have cost developers to make it on said hardware? The problem is that developers feel they must utilize the hardware, and so they spend more to form the game around the hardware rather than just making the game.

Yet Capcom (and I think Konami did too) did make great games for the Wii. No one bought them. The consumers were the problem in terms of graphics they wanted to see. Not the developers.

truth. Yet at the same time, Nintendo's relationship with 3rd parties before recently and 3rd parties refusal to advertise anything certainly didn't help. But at the end of the day, I will never not be infuriated at the hypocritical, self-proclaimed hardcore gamers pretending games don't exist when they do. (and I've ranted about this enough to write a short novel, so I won't)

The Wii had more than graphics holding it back. There was no way to patch games post update and for most of the life of the console there was no DLC. The Wii U adresses these problems and in many ways makes the Wii U a better platform than the 360/PS3 in that regard. That combined with the fact that third party titles failed to sell that well on that platform was why the Wii failed. The fact that the Wii U version of AC3 made it at launch and before the PC version in the US and that a fair amount of launch games came out of the gate with a patch shows how much things have changed.

I don't expect the 360/PS3 to die a sudden death when the "next gen" starts. Word is that there will be two versions of the 720, a lower powered one and a higher powered one. They're pushing for "XBox" to be a piece of software that runs on windows and appeals to everyone rather than a piece of hardware. So expect the "HD era" level of power consoles to drag their feet for a good five years before the Wii U is the odd one out.

Its pathetic how some of you accuse me of idiotic trolling and obviously don't read my full post before making such assumptions. Im following ALL news on ANY gaming console/handheld and just stated my discoveries/opinions. No need to get personal.

Again the next PS and next XBOX are wildly speculative and as I said it comes down to your personal choice and what games you like and where they are available. Still I believe that next XBOX will come in 2 versions, one 600$+ has it all thing and one sub 100 $ with 2-3 years of subscription binding on xbox live, just like mobile phone contractors do.

And outside of any comparison with other consoles, because if I want the 1st party of Nintendo its the WiiU I have to go to anyways, what bugs me most is Nintendo stumbling over their own feet without any head on bashing with competitors. Just things like the many shortcomings of the WiiU.