Better graphics means worse gameplay?

#11MctiasPosted 2/21/2013 10:28:12 AM
TC, your mistake is coming in here expecting rational though.
#12meiyukiPosted 2/21/2013 10:31:32 AM
DFMan456 posted...
What is up with that mentality on this board? I see people inferring that over and over again. Yes, gameplay is king. Yes, graphics can't save bad gameplay. But you CAN have BOTH! Have these people skipped over the Wii/360/PS3 era? The 360 and PS3 had an enormous library of games that were substantially better looking than the Wii while having fantastic gameplay. So please, stop acting like just because some up coming games are gorgeous that they're automatically going to be shallow. It simply isn't true.


Can you perhaps provide examples, specially direct comparisons likes series or sequels where as graphics improved other features wern't cut back? Cause I can sure provide lots of examples where a series increased graphics and cut back on gameplay.
#13qbertz716Posted 2/21/2013 11:10:49 AM
If their graphics are better, fanboys boast about how much more powerful their console is. If their graphics are worse, fanboys dismiss it and tout game play over graphics.

There is no reasoning with them. They're insecure, immature little people who feel the constant need to try to validate their fandom by any means. Fanboys gonna be fanboys.
#14CyborgTwentyPosted 2/21/2013 12:13:42 PM
Pigfarts posted...
CyborgTwenty posted...
yes it DOES and it's why nintendo reigns superior once again. phenomenal gameplay in masterpieces like zombi u, nintendo land etc etc etc is something ps4 and 720 will never be able to do!


zombie U was a pretty bad example.


no it's not.
#15emagdnEPosted 2/21/2013 12:16:27 PM
in theory not necessarily

in practice that does tend to happen
---
I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy... All right, give me the bomb. -Ultra Magnus
#16Baha05Posted 2/21/2013 12:17:48 PM
Ummm yes and no. It depends if the developers were focusing mainly on graphics and not as much on the gameplay.
---
"I think there will be a price drop at the latest by E3. I'd even bet my account on it." Icecreamdunwich on the Wii U
#17SharkbiteR6Posted 2/21/2013 12:36:21 PM
I think the whole graphics vs. gameplay argument is idiotic to begin with. Its just people who don't understand basic game development. Your not taking a side when you say "I prefer gameplay over graphics". Of course you do, everyone does. I have yet to ever once hear someone say "Well the game was boring, uninspired, and frustrating, but the graphics were nice so i loved it and played for 100+ hours."

The graphics (or more to the point, the processing power) that a system is capable of is a PART of developing gameplay. When developers are making a game, the are constrained by only two things about the hardware, the processing power of the system and the control interface. If you loved say, Dead Space's gameplay, or Skyward Swords, or pretty much any game produced this past gen, go and try and replicate that gameplay exactly on the Super Nintendo or Sega Genesis. Then come back and tell me processing power doesn't lead to new gameplay possibilities.

I can definitely agree that taking the same gameplay and just making it prettier (like the Killzone 4 footage) isn't using the processing power to reinvent gameplay. And there are certainly times when developers obviously were to focused on how the game looked. But this whole "well i don't care how powerful the system is, I just care about the games" is wrong. Did you like any of the game this past gen that took full advantage of the systems power? (that includes the Wii, the fact that is was less powerful than the PS360 is irrelevant). Then by definition you did care about the systems power, because the game wouldn't have existed as is otherwise....
---
Currently playing: Dead Space 3, Persona 4: Arena, Xenoblade Chronicles, Brigandine
#1840DribylfPosted 2/21/2013 12:50:50 PM
Developers don't have little wars in their studios:

"Hey guiz we need more money so we can improve the gameplay part"

"NOO the graphics FEED ON THE MONEY WE NEED MONEY SO THE GRAPHICS CAN GROW"

That not how it works.

A good game has talented people working in all fields. Art directors, level designers, play testers, debug team, programmers. If a team is talented enough, they can make a beautiful and fun game. There is never a compromise between graphics and gameplay, never. There is only emphasis on the wrong facet.

There are very, very few games I know of that are technically beautiful yet have "terrible gameplay" anyway. If you don't like games like Halo, Gears, Crysis, that's personal taste, not because the games are bad.

Most of my favorite games were technical marvels on their respective systems. Majora's Mask, MGS3, Resident Evil 4, Xenoblade.

In short, shut up.
---
I am hip
http://www.last.fm/user/KDay1990
#19meiyukiPosted 2/21/2013 1:01:01 PM
SharkbiteR6 posted...
If you loved say, Dead Space's gameplay, or Skyward Swords, or pretty much any game produced this past gen, go and try and replicate that gameplay exactly on the Super Nintendo or Sega Genesis. Then come back and tell me processing power doesn't lead to new gameplay possibilities.


The problem is this tries to take the statements to such an extreme it finally breaks down, specially since we're getting so far down we're at systems that arn't even realistically capable of rendering 3d graphics. What I was trying to get at in my previous post, that everyone loves to ignore, is show me the examples of power being used to enhance more than graphics. One of the best examples of this is Elder Scrolls games, their gameplay has declined as their graphics have increased starting all the way back at morrowind. Final fantasy is another example, ff13 hallway run anyone? Why do you suppose most games don't have any kinds of branching paths and things?

Yes eventually technology must move forward that's not really being denied. While there are certainly games that have managed to increase both they tend to be fairly rare, and more often than not gameplay is sacrificed for graphics.

Developers don't have little wars in their studios:

"Hey guiz we need more money so we can improve the gameplay part"

"NOO the graphics FEED ON THE MONEY WE NEED MONEY SO THE GRAPHICS CAN GROW"

That not how it works.


I can assure that's how it works, you have a budget, artists, animators, programers, script writers, and level designers all need to be paid. The more programers you hire the more they can optimize systems and create new ones, the more artists you hire the more art you're able to generate etc.
#20DemonDog666Posted 2/21/2013 1:05:47 PM
SharkbiteR6 posted...
I think the whole graphics vs. gameplay argument is idiotic to begin with. Its just people who don't understand basic game development. Your not taking a side when you say "I prefer gameplay over graphics". Of course you do, everyone does. I have yet to ever once hear someone say "Well the game was boring, uninspired, and frustrating, but the graphics were nice so i loved it and played for 100+ hours."

The graphics (or more to the point, the processing power) that a system is capable of is a PART of developing gameplay. When developers are making a game, the are constrained by only two things about the hardware, the processing power of the system and the control interface. If you loved say, Dead Space's gameplay, or Skyward Swords, or pretty much any game produced this past gen, go and try and replicate that gameplay exactly on the Super Nintendo or Sega Genesis. Then come back and tell me processing power doesn't lead to new gameplay possibilities.

I can definitely agree that taking the same gameplay and just making it prettier (like the Killzone 4 footage) isn't using the processing power to reinvent gameplay. And there are certainly times when developers obviously were to focused on how the game looked. But this whole "well i don't care how powerful the system is, I just care about the games" is wrong. Did you like any of the game this past gen that took full advantage of the systems power? (that includes the Wii, the fact that is was less powerful than the PS360 is irrelevant). Then by definition you did care about the systems power, because the game wouldn't have existed as is otherwise....


You've obviously never been to the FFXIII board... but yeah Nintendo fanboys don't know what they are talking about, ps3/360 games had way better gameplay then wii games and better graphics too *gasp* and a stronger system makes it cheaper to reach the same levels of graphics/gameplay as a weaker system *double gasp* it's only when developers are stupid and blow their budget on getting visuals to the absolute max that the hardware can that gameplay starts to suffer.