Graphics aren't important? Bullsh*t

[mariosmentor]

Well nobody is disputing the fact that a great game does not have to have great graphics.

What they are disputing is the fact that nintendo has seemingly completely abandoned the idea that they need graphics at all, and at the price we are all presumably going to be paying we're getting an updated control system(which does look amazing but enough to warrent it as next gen?) and the ability to check the weather.

 

What they don't understand is that some games actually do need technically advanced graphics. Something that all the hardcore fanboys don't realise is that certain games just don't have much variation in gameplay at all.

for example. The next series of pro evolution soccer, gameplay is never very different but you'll bet they'll be aiming at improving the visuals so where does that leave us?

Losing any chance of the rights to a popular franchise - losing support - losing fans - gamecube situation(thats where nobody will develop and if they do its some piss poor platformer and the mass public ridicule it while all stocks are withdrawn from shelves except the one or two nintendo exlusives released every 6 months.)

 

Racing games? Mostly about graphical enchancements so if we get one racing game from a series that'll probably be it and it'll be poor in comparison to the competitors even if it does use the wiimote inovately (jimmy why would you want a wii for christmas? look at how good that same racing game looks for the xbox360 and its almost the same price.)

 

thats only a few, just to let you open your mind to the fact that in certain genre's gameplay only gos so far and then what? bye bye nintendo.

Most of you are hypocrites who would pounce on the first wii game that overpowered graphically any game on the ps3. If nintendo next generation became the most powerful machine would you all magically change your direction towards uber-graphics? Or would you all petition that every game on this uber machine be made with the least amount of polygons to preserve gameplay?

 

The jist is video games are constructed from a variety of elements including graphics and gameplay. And if any of these areas are lacking it takes away from the game as a whole. Not in a way that makes it unplayable or even bad but we still has to live with the fact that it is not best it could have been.

 

Now on the other hand zelda looks amazing, not because of stunning graphics but because they used the graphics to achieve a very attractive style and if all developers did this then i would be pleased but i know they won't. We'll get blocky basic crap on the major part and have to deal with it.

[Strange Cookie]

Here's my view:

 

Good graphics is a "nice to have".

Good gameplay is a "need to have".

 

I agree that graphics can enhance the gameplay-experience, but it's doesn't "make" it. Think the "Mardi Gras"-scene in Hitman: Blood Money. The amount of people onscreen is staggering! It really gives a sense of scale, but if the gameplay had sucked, no amount of graphical trickery would have saved that mission.

 

On the subject of style over polygons: think of Free Radical and the amazing job they did on the Timesplitters-series and Second Sight! Not very high on polygons but definitely high on style and animation!

 

The best game-experience I ever had was in Ocarine of Time, when I first had to behold a Hyrule in ruins after I arrived in the future. The lonely marketplace, the mumbling zombies, the flying castle, the darkness... It was relatively low-tech, but even today no amount of polygons, normal-mapping, self-shadowing or fancy shader has made a more memorable scene. Even to date it sends shivers up my spine...

 

I tried to make a point somewhere, but I lost myself halfway there. :wink:

[Dilli Gee]

My new point:

 

Games like Assassin's Creed have both great gameplay and physics, along with fantastic graphics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dKCCEFQkrQ).

 

Why can't Nintendo let us have both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

It seems Wii restricts the developers as they can have great gameplay, but are limited with the graphics. I don't think we'll ever see anything as good as Assassin's Creed on Wii, simply because of these restrictions.

[LazyBoy]

My new point:

 

Games like Assassin's Creed have both great gameplay and physics, along with fantastic graphics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dKCCEFQkrQ).

 

Why can't Nintendo let us have both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

Price? I thought that was pretty obvious.

[Patch]

What they don't understand is that some games actually do need technically advanced graphics. Something that all the hardcore fanboys don't realise is that certain games just don't have much variation in gameplay at all.

for example. The next series of pro evolution soccer, gameplay is never very different but you'll bet they'll be aiming at improving the visuals so where does that leave us?

 

In a world without by-the-numbers sequels hopefully.

[Dilli Gee]

Price? I thought that was pretty obvious.

I'm sure many people wouldn't mind spending that extra £20 on the system actually be graphically abled for a few years to come.

[c0Zm1c]

I'm sure many people wouldn't mind spending that extra £20 on the system actually be graphically abled for a few years to come.

Next-gen graphics + last-gen controller. Why can't Microsoft let us have both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

[LazyBoy]

I'm sure many people wouldn't mind spending that extra £20 on the system actually be graphically abled for a few years to come.

 

Well for one it wouldn't cost £20. Now I presume you're going by the cheaper XBox package, which is indeed £20 more. But first you have to subtract the price of a WiiMote and Nunchuck, and a copy of Wii Sports. Was it £45 for the two?, and then lets say WiiSports is bargin price at £20.

 

So now you are talking £265 for the console. That's falling out of the range of the casual gamer, that market Nintendo is trying to reach. I'm willing to pay £265, but I don't think the public are.

[Pit-Jr]

so many good points about the darker and greedier side of Nintendo have been made in this thread.

 

While Iwata was busy interviewing and praising his hardware development team, i wonder how Nintendo's software dev teams feel about having to work with now-underpowered hardware for another 5 years, just because Nintendo wants to make Wii cheaper for us (read: for themselves)

 

Having said that, i think we should wait til weve experienced the damn thing on our own TVs before slating Nintendo, but i have a feeling this thread will be revived shortly after the launch

[dabookerman]

lol

 

They make the machine profitable

Its basically a cube with waggle

 

They know it is going to sell the most

We know it is going to sell the most

 

The DS was a test, and that test paid off, it sells a shit load week in week out

 

This is all for financial gain.

[Hellfire]

Extra £20?

Hold me, I might faint.

[fukudasolokomalakikenanze]

Shows the power of money...

 

Anyone here actually NOT going to buy a Wii console ever?

 

The more people buy the console, the more the gaming community will Wiip in the benefits and the industry will rejuvinate.

[Phube]

lol

 

They make the machine profitable

Its basically a cube with waggle

 

They know it is going to sell the most

We know it is going to sell the most

 

The DS was a test, and that test paid off, it sells a shit load week in week out

 

This is all for financial gain.

 

For a business??? How strange!!!

[mario_jr]

My new point:

 

Games like Assassin's Creed have both great gameplay and physics, along with fantastic graphics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dKCCEFQkrQ).

 

Why can't Nintendo let us have both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

It seems Wii restricts the developers as they can have great gameplay, but are limited with the graphics. I don't think we'll ever see anything as good as Assassin's Creed on Wii, simply because of these restrictions.

 

Well Nintendo didn't go Online last Gen cause they said it wasn't that big a deal and now it is, so they're going Online. This Gen they said that they didn't want to go the way of HD, and instead chose to go this route of innovative game play, and that next next Gen they will focus more on graphics.

Unless they can figure some new way to innovate our game play.......Megat0n:laughing:

[Dilli Gee]

Being HD has nothing to do with having good graphics. They're not the same thing, just like HD has nothing to do with being a blockbuster special effects film.

 

For a business??? How strange!!!

And Microsoft and Sony aren't businesses?

 

These are all companies with the interest of profit, it's just Microsoft is using a more consumer-friendly method to provide a better system.

 

Next-gen graphics + last-gen controller. Why can't Microsoft let us have both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

The Wii-mote isn't a next generation controller. If it was, then by default most arcades are next-generation as well. The controller has nothing to do with being next-generation.

 

If Nintendo released a controller like the Wii-mote for the GameCube 4 years ago, would that have made the GameCube next generation? No.

[mario_jr]

Being HD has nothing to do with having good graphics.

yes it does. Whats the point of making great graphincs if they're going to be put on SD. Great graphincs look better on HD. Its like painting the Last Supper on a piece of newsprint, no one is going to care much, theres not enough space for the detail.

 

The Wii-mote isn't a next generation controller. If it was, then by default most arcades are next-generation as well. The controller has nothing to do with being next-generation.

They were when they came out in the late 70's early 80's, you can't call them Next Gen now.

 

No.

[Dilli Gee]

You missed my point entirely. It doesn't just have to be big blockbuster titles in HD, smaller titles can be HD too, like Tetris (if it wanted to be).

[mario_jr]

You missed my point entirely. It doesn't just have to be big blockbuster titles in HD, smaller titles can be HD too, like Tetris (if it wanted to be).

 

I think you missed your own point yet again.

 

My new point:

 

Games like Assassin's Creed have both great gameplay and physics, along with fantastic graphics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dKCCEFQkrQ).

Why can't Nintendo let us have both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

It seems Wii restricts the developers as they can have great gameplay, but are limited with the graphics. I don't think we'll ever see anything as good as Assassin's Creed on Wii, simply because of these restrictions.

 

 

SEE there:awesome: Then I said

 

Well Nintendo didn't go Online last Gen cause they said it wasn't that big a deal and now it is, so they're going Online. This Gen they said that they didn't want to go the way of HD, and instead chose to go this route of innovative game play, and that next next Gen they will focus more on graphics.

Unless they can figure some new way to innovate our game play.......Megat0n:laughing:

 

:hehe:

[LazyBoy]

Being HD has nothing to do with having good graphics. They're not the same thing, just like HD has nothing to do with being a blockbuster special effects film.

 

 

And Microsoft and Sony aren't businesses?

 

These are all companies with the interest of profit, it's just Microsoft is using a more consumer-friendly method to provide a better system.

 

 

The Wii-mote isn't a next generation controller. If it was, then by default most arcades are next-generation as well. The controller has nothing to do with being next-generation.

 

If Nintendo released a controller like the Wii-mote for the GameCube 4 years ago, would that have made the GameCube next generation? No.

 

I think I actually disagree with your whole post. Lets try and break this down.

 

1. Sony and Microsoft run their businesses differently. Microsoft are selling at a loss, because they can afford to, Nintendo can't. They're more focused on establishing the brand name. Sony will try and replicate the success with the PS2, and make their money through the games.

 

2. I don't know how you bring customer friendliness into this. The Wii is cheaper, and offers a system that is simple and easy to use.

 

3. The Wii is a next genration controller. If it isn't I don't know what is. Seriously, please tell me what a next-generation controller is.

 

4. Well the cube was a next generation console at one point.

 

 

Can I just clarify, you're not getting a Wii are you.

[Teppo Holmqvist]

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/4960/activisionkz7.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6031/atlusealu4.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6571/nintendobo9.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4302/segakonamilt8.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3199/thqhx7.jpg

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/5002/ubisoftfs5.jpg

 

Seriously... after I pasted these on finnish Playstation forums, most users actually agreed that most games in these screenshots wouldn't be possible on PS2 or Gamecube or Xbox. I personally find it rather amusing that it's actually harder to make Nintendo fans believe in their console's graphical prowess than others. *sigh*

 

EDIT: THQ "horror gallery" was added simply because I originally wanted to demostrate how fucked up THQ's games always are.

[T-Bird]

Didn't this thread all originate from the FarCry screenies? Seriously I think it was blown way out of proportion. Looking at those ones there and just Zelda in general, you can clearly see it's way better graphics than the Gamecube. So it's obviously possible. It's just up to developers whether they want to go with the graphics or if they feel their game doesn't need graphics like that as some titles (eg. Wii Sports) don't need them at all.

[Teppo Holmqvist]

Didn't this thread all originate from the FarCry screenies?

 

This thread originated from TGS where Sony showed their games for first games for PS3.

[Librarian]

The world has gone mad today

And good's bad today,

And black's white today,

And day's night today,

When most guys today

That women prize today

Are just silly gigolos

And though I'm not a great romancer

I know that I'm bound to answer

When you propose,

Anything goes

[system_error]

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/4960/activisionkz7.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6031/atlusealu4.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6571/nintendobo9.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4302/segakonamilt8.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3199/thqhx7.jpg

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/5002/ubisoftfs5.jpg

 

Seriously... after I pasted these on finnish Playstation forums, most users actually agreed that most games in these screenshots wouldn't be possible on PS2 or Gamecube or Xbox. I personally find it rather amusing that it's actually harder to make Nintendo fans believe in their console's graphical prowess than others. *sigh*

 

EDIT: THQ "horror gallery" was added simply because I originally wanted to demostrate how fucked up THQ's games always are.

 

Well I would disagree with you on that point. Zelda is a Gamecube game, Battalion Wars would be possible aswell. Except RedSteel, SplinterCell (depending on how the game looks running), Excite Truck and Sonic I am pretty sure every other title would be running fine on the Cube even on the Playstation 2. CoD 3 has nice smoke effects (but I heavly doubt we will see them like this in the game itself) but the polygons and textures are horrible. So I say those are some nice screenshots but in the end they are first generation Wii games or third generation Gamecube games.

 

 

To be honest I rather believe what the majority of people at Beyond3D claims - the Wii is a small step in power compared to the Gamecube. Energy consumption, size and efficency might have increased but either:

 

1. developers can't use all of the power the Wii gained (contradicts the Nintendo "easy development" philosophy)

 

or

 

2. there is really not much more power compared to the Gamecube

 

or

 

3. developers are still afraid of the Wii and don't put as much resources in Wii games as they could (which is contradicted by the Ubisoft support, the general love towards)

[Hellfire]

Well I would disagree with you on that point. Zelda is a Gamecube game, Battalion Wars would be possible aswell. Except RedSteel, SplinterCell (depending on how the game looks running), Excite Truck and Sonic I am pretty sure every other title would be running fine on the Cube even on the Playstation 2. CoD 3 has nice smoke effects (but I heavly doubt we will see them like this in the game itself) but the polygons and textures are horrible. So I say those are some nice screenshots but in the end they are first generation Wii games or third generation Gamecube games.

 

 

Sorry but GC couldn't do BWii, there are lots of effects that GC couldnt handle, the draw distance and all that combined with a stable framerate and lots of characters on screen.

I think the focus of the hardware was to make something profitable, small, quiet and withou a lot of power consumption. But Mario Galaxy shows that games can look good, devs just are investing their time on getting used to the wiimote.