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

I think the whole underlying issue in this thread is that you often HEAR more about a new game's (and especially a new system's) graphical capabilities than about "gameplay." It's a very easy metric to measure a game or system technically. What resolution is it? How many polygons per second? Frames per second? etc. It's a bit harder to measure objectively how much smarter the AI is, how much more realistic the physics are, or other factors that come with more processing power.

It also partially depends on the genre, and you don't necessarily get BETTER gameplay with better graphics but you do get more variety. For example, many would argue SMB3 is as good or better than NSMBWii, though the graphics on NSMB are, from a technical standpoint, better (I won't get into a debate on art style here). On the other hand, could a game like Kirby's Epic Yarn or Little Big Planet be done on an SNES? There's no way you could get the sort of detailing on the textures to make that art style work. Also, I think it would be very difficult to manipulate the environments in the way those games do (imagine pulling a box in Sonic the Hedgehog vs. LBP - which has more interesting physics?) without the graphics capability. 2D platforming is probably one of the genres where graphics matter LEAST, yet with more power for graphics new worlds are opened up. Another example is Mario Galaxy. That couldn't be done on Nintendo 64, because it wouldn't be able to process enough polygons to make playing on spherical planets feasible. Mario 64 is STILL an outstanding game, but without improvement in technology and graphics capabilities, the gaming world would not have been able to move past it.

tl;dr Graphics and gameplay are intertwined, and advancement in graphics technology makes more types of games possible, even if it doesn't make said games "better" per se.

How many years you talking about here?? This is mostly untrue.

I noticed a recent trend amongst younger gamers(12 and below) that claim Nintendo "Never cares about graphics".

When the NES came out the graphics were so stunning at the time compared to the competition it was like going from a PS1 to a PS3.

When Nintendo entered its second generation, the graphics were superior to its closest competition(we know who). This generation was the oddest because there were about 5 other systems out that touted graphics to be their best asset but no one , unfortunately, bought these systems(Panasonic 3DO, Atari Jaguar, Amiga CD32, etc.) so its tough to count them in that generation, again unfortunately.

Then next generation saw the PS1, Saturn and N64. Again the N64 had the best realtime graphics but PS1 lured a lot of oblivious people with commercials that only showed cutscenes(boy, do they still pull this scam).

The next generation was more of a tie between Xbox and Gamecube graphically, but the inferior PS2 won by a long shot in sales.

This generation Nintendo got smart and figured graphics aren't everything(see previous gen.) and took a wild approach by having the smallest graphics update in gaming history. And this is were all the kids and misinformed say "Nintendo never cares about graphics", but this is certainly untrue. I read a blog about a former ATI member who said Nintendo panicked a little when they saw Gears of War in realtime, he claims Nintendo wanted to remodel their graphics chip, but it was too late since Their release date goal was holiday 2006. I cannot confirm this though. But this seems pretty real.

So in short the 3DS graphics did not surprise me. YES, they're amazing, but nothing I didn't expect.

Oh look. People are still mistaking technical power for graphical quality.

Aesthetics are important. And aesthetics is what graphics really are.

I would quite happily argue that the NES, SNES, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Dreamcast, Gamecube, Xbox, Gameboy and every other successful console through history features games with good graphics.

A game with bad graphics is unplayable. End of story.

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.

Nope, nope, nope. If a game has great graphics, then it is a great game automatically. AUTOMATICALLY.
GRAPHICS ARE AWESOME. Is gameplay even a real word? HAAAAALLLLOOOOOO FTW!!!

Actually this is true 99% of the time, and I agree with you. Otherwise there wouldn't be a reason for technical updates. We would all be content with out NES. For example destructible environments and hordes of enemies is something of the new generation that couldn't be done on the Xbox, Gamecube and PS2.

If technical power is completely irrelevant than maybe we should all just shut up and talk about the DS' graphics, cuz hey it can do the same every other platform can do right? What's with all this 3DS fluff?

@Reddlionz yah I hear that to, I really want to go up to them and lecture them on the fact MH3 has great graphics for the wii, and its up to the people who make the games not the systems power (in a sense) like if Nintendo wanted they couldve made wii sports have MH3 graphic, but they didnt. Also Capcom couldve made MM9 and 10 much more then 8-Bit, but they chose to listen to the GAMERS and not the Bias FANBOYS.

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

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.

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.

Isn't that opinion though?

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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. ...

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."