I agree...some of those old Journey albums have really amazing cover art.

@Waltz - What is the "special case?"

Guys arguing about my HD comment, by saying the same graphics would be boring, notice I said NOT LIKE NSMB! I meant in the way they could all be 16-bit but have different art styles that would be ok

GAMEPLAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GOOD GRAPHICS >:0
I totally agree with you Harmoknight, every game should have same graphics and they're gameplay will be what makes them unique. HD is unfair and is worthless.

Like I said a game can be 16-bit and look different then another 16-bit game

You can only do so much with limited hardware. After years upon years, it starts to show.

I never said gameplay wasn't anything or was anything but graphics are an important role on delivering the best experience possible.

And anyone who says past gen graphics "suck" are the kinds of people you can't take seriously.

That's a little biased. You should look at it with a better perspective.

Final Fantasy VII. A genuinely broken game in terms of its aesthetics.

Like I said a game can be 16-bit and look different then another 16-bit game

That's ridiculous. That's like saying you want artists to be forced to only use canvas for their paintings.

The more powerful consoles give the developers a wider range of tools to make a wider range of game experiences. That is nothing but a good thing. Yes, in the end, the only thing that's important is what the developers do with the tools, but it's simply childish to say that offering a wider range of game development options is a bad thing.

holy f*ck guys graphics are important.

@waltz the funny thing is... When I'm doing art, I want it to be as perfect as possible, I ended up throwing away a ton of my art projects in school and got far behind because I wanted it to look perfect

Well said. If you focus too hard on the graphics and making it too good then you can't make a good game. Nowadays since everything is HD developers feel like they have to make a hardcore graphics game to even be worth it. I'd rather have a fun gameplay idea than have HD graphics. We'd have so many better games if everyone wasn't focused on realistic HD graphics.

Once again you're missing the point here. HD graphics =/= good graphics.

The original Super Mario Brothers has better "graphics" than almost all of the HD game consoles.

This has nothing to do with perfection, bits, or the hardware running the visual engine. This has to do with gamers completely misunderstanding that aesthetics is what makes "good graphics" and aesthetics applies from NES games right through to HD consoles.

It's not hard to make an attractive art style whilst making an interesting game. I hate it when gamers think a game could have been better if the developers spent a little more time with the game play than the graphics.

That can only apply to smaller studios and independent developers. Larger studios have assigned professionals working on every aspect of the video game including game play, story line, music and graphics.

There's never an equal part per say.

What he said

Ard you asking me? if so, I was trying to make a point that resolution and realistic graphics don't matter as much as gameplay, I love the NES and most of its games.

We get it: game play is important. But graphics are also important which is something you need to realize.

Arguing over video games with those who have extreme opinions! HOORAY!!!

OF GRAPHICS AND GAMEPLAY:

To WaltzElf and similar individuals: While it is impossible to have video games without some form of graphics, you cannot say that gameplay is completely inseparable from graphics. Why? Because graphics are representations of variables/states that the game wants to show the player. For example; the first Super Mario Bros. game and New Super Mario Bros. (take your pick). The graphics of both games are vastly different, but their gameplay is the same due to their game variables/states being almost exactly like each-other.

To "Gameplay >>> Graphics" Believers: While video games are an interactive medium and we should primarily focus on interactivity first and foremost, graphics play a big part. While some modern games use high-quality graphical spectacles as part of their appeal, all games absolutely demand one thing from their graphics; visual sharpness. Simply put, if a player cannot visually process and understand what is happening with a game's graphics, the graphics have failed the game and worsened it.

While it is impossible to have video games without some form of graphics, you cannot say that gameplay is completely inseparable from graphics. Why? Because graphics are representations of variables/states that the game wants to show the player. For example; the first Super Mario Bros. game and New Super Mario Bros. (take your pick). The graphics of both games are vastly different, but their gameplay is the same due to their game variables/states being almost exactly like each-other.

Vastly different, but of equal quality.

Does anyone look at a Andy Warhol painting and say "well, that's different to MC Escher's work. INFERIOR?" Does anyone watch the old Doctor Who and dismiss it because it "looks different" to the new Star Trek?

No. Andy Warhol is great. MC Escher is great. Doctor Who is great, Star Trek is great. What is the common thread here? The visual component of the themes of each of these works of entertainment/ art is critical to their appeal. Because art is a visual medium. Games are nothing more than interactive art.

It seems to be only the games industry that has such a narrow view of graphics that way too many people fall into one of two categories: 1) if it's older it's inferior or 2) it's older and therefore it's better because I'm old school and awesome and gameplay is better than graphics.

• Like
  The controls: excellent GamePad, its handling, design, and all it can do
  The games: Nintendo Land, Little Inferno and most of the 3rd party games (still need to get Mario)
  The online in general: Miiverse, the Internet browser, no friendcodes, Wii U Chat, friends list
  _
• Dislike
  Wii Mode and everything that goes with it from it being separated from the Wii U, to the complicated and faulty Data Transfer, to the freaking unnecessary and frustrating memory limitation, to some features like WiiConnect24 missing altogether. I would have bought the 8GB basic pack if I'd known about this! I get the feeling that Nintendo doesn't care about the best consumers, and I start to think that it's worthless to build up a digital collection of games on a Nintendo console, with all the limitations and ignorant decisions they made in that regard.
  Nintendo eShop. The Wii Shop was much better and not a chaotic mess, Wii U hasn't even a simple chronological release list.... and it doesn't accept that I already downloaded the YouTube app, so it's glitchy as well.
  The freezing. But that was just in the first few days. No freezes in the last five days makes me happy. Seems it fixed itself somehow or it was really just the servers.
  _
• About the offtopic blah:
  It's depending on the gamer, not on the games, what is more important. Graphics or gameplay. This debate will never end. And you're all wrong. For me more important than gameplay or graphics is the fun, the immersiveness, and the music. You could have that all in a text adventure

Nah, It's just trying to protect you from that app.