Topic: This whole HD era confuses me.

I'm saying the improvement isn't explicitly implied by innovation. Whether something is an improvement or not can be very opinion based.

Ok, In agree with you on your graphics standpoint. But I think that games becoming more cinematic is a good thing. Metroid: Other M was my favorite metroid game because of the story. It went way more in depth than any other game before it. How? Cinematics. If it werent for the cinematic the story would have been difficult to understand. My own incentive to go back and replay games comes from the story. While a game can be amazing in its own right, its complete junk with no story.

So Tetris is junk?

You're all looking at it the wrong way. The Wii is an improvement from past consoles, because it introduced something new. Motion controls are an improvement to gaming in general, not just the previous console itself. The Wii U tablet controller is an improvement to the Wii because it builds on the Wii, and brings something new to the table.

...Am I really explaining this?

@GameLord08: I have no doubt that the wii and wii U are improvements on past consoles. I was just trying to clarify that there is no differance between "new control method" and "innovation" because a new control method is an innovation and that innovation doesn't necessarily mean improvement; just a change from the norm.

Don't tell me you're surprised.

So Pac-Man needs a specific reason for chasing those ghosts? The guy from Dig Dug (an old Namco arcade game) needs motivation for blowing up those cute monsters while digging deeper into the soil? Mario needs to have diverse character interaction while crushing a Goomba's head? I need a story to explain why I'm driving so crazy in Burnout Paradise?

If all games had stories, then they'd just be interactive movies.

I'm glad not all games are heavily story-based, cause it would make the industry boring and stale. We need those fun games like Mega Man, Mario, Zelda, Pac-Man, Sonic, etc. too keep things fresh and interesting.

Hm... look at Battlefield 1942. Crap graphics now, but people still play it. Oh, and Super Mario Bros. That looks crappy now, right?

Also, is there any game whose graphics are too ugly for the game to even be played without going insane? No. I agree about terrible sound, though, as Xevious's constant siren-like tune made me go semi-insane. Furthermore, story being IMPORTANT IN GAMES? Ha, then tell me why games like Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda are still being played today. No story except 'save the princess.' Unless the game was an RPG (and even RPGs still need gameplay, as Final Fantasy I had basically no story at all), I would rather go outside and read books or writing a novel.

Games are GAMES. Not movies or books. If I wanted to have pretty graphics and sound, I would again go outside, take a walk, and listen to the environment. The concept about games being climatic like movies was cool back in 2007, but now it's getting stale. Which is why I ditched Sony after the PS2 and stuck with Nintendo on the Wii, which I never regretted purchasing.

@PrimedMetroid: Well done. You just compared Aviator's statement to two games that aren't defined by the new generation, and can not arguably be stated to be expected to live up to today's standard of games. Those are older games.

And censor your language if you do find the need to litter your posts with profanity.

Plenty of games had very minimal to no story, yet they were still fun to play.

Pac-Man
Super Mario Bros.
Asteroids
Mega Man 1 - 6
Mega Man 9 & 10
Mega Man X
Dig Dug
Galaga
Hexic HD
Donkey Kong (arcade Game Boy, and DS versions)
Sonic the Hedgehog 1, 2, 3, Sonic & Knuckles
Street Fighter 2
Mortal Kombat 1, 2, 3 (most of the story was in the character bios and in the manual)
Wii Sports
Wii Sports Resort
ExciteBike
ExciteTruck
ExciteBots
Burnout series
Punch Out series

You don't need a story, or voice acting, or cinematics to have a good game. Gameplay always comes first.

Instead of listing hot-off-the-presses topical references, how about some modern games?

My point is, if HD graphics and cinematic games were really that important, then we wouldn't have iPhone, Android, 3DS, iPad games.

3DS isn't HD yet people still enjoy it. If people really wanted HD games then they'd all buy a Vita, and we all know how poorly that's selling in Japan. Look at the PSP compared to the original DS. People expected the PSP to outsell the DS just because the graphics and games were more advanced, but that clearly didn't happen.

Case closed.

So you're telling me that every game is an interactive movie unless it has no setting, plot, or NPC dialogue? I shouldn't need to point out how ridiculous that is.

Why are they looking to handhelds to get a HD experience? If they wanted HD they would look to PS3/PC.
Also, stop comparing apples to oranges. It doesn't work.

I'm talking about if every game was like Arkham Asylumn or Uncharted or Resident Evil 4 / 5.

Story is by no means the most important part of a game, but it's odd how so many Nintendo fans nowadays look down their noses at story as if it's one of those things that "other companies" do, when it was Nintendo who pretty much pioneered story-telling in video games (very simple stories, but stories nonetheless). At the risk of using the dreaded word, maybe it could be seen as one of their innovations.

I'm just using the "PSP vs DS" example to state my point that graphics are not the most important thing in gaming. Also, look at the success of games on iPhone, iPad, Android, etc.

Yes they are handheld games, but they still count. Games are games.

True, but it was Kojima who brought story-based cinematic games to the mainstream with Metal Gear Solid.

_{I really don't know why I keep commenting here, maybe I'm just really bored...}

Okay. iOS games and the like cannot be compared to console games. Yes they are game, (otherwise they wouldn't be called games) but they are not the type of game that have a 50+ hour story, graphics, sound, gameplay and what not. iOS GAMES ARE PICK UP AND PLAY!! That's why they cost 99c. If you buy a 99c app and expect to get the same experiance from a AAA title then you're kidding yourself.

Your PSP vs DS 'example' are horrid actually. Why are you comparing handheld games on graphics alone. You have no proof that your theory is the case.

The modern Batman games are not films. I don't know if you have played them not. IT'S CALLED STORY! CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT! STRUGGLES OF THE PROTAGONIST! THE ANTAGONIST'S GRAND SCHEME BEING THWARTED BY THE PROTAGONIST!! Read a book, watch a film. On most cases, it's all there. But the thing is with the game, you play it. I didn't spend 12 hours watching Batman: Arkham City, I spent 12 hours enjoying every minute of it. The gameplay, the graphics, the sound, the fanservice. It's all part of the experience that make you enjoy a video game. That line of theory also fits your other examples of Uncharted, and the modern Resident Evil games.

I'll say it again, if you do not like a videogame you do not have to play it. But you cannot simply call out a game that has a story, which focuses on more aspects than gameplay a film. Because you are wrong.

SNES RPGs, Point and Click adventures, a plethora of PC games.