Nerd Mentality

Ben

See the flight, feel the fight! Heatseeker is larger-than-life, in-your-face, pyromaniac rollercoaster that brings explosive arcade close-quarters missile combat to your console. The best explosions, the sexiest planes, the most spectacular weapons, all with the unique tactile control of the Wii.

Die Ben Die
___________________

Machine Knight

Die Ben Die

Aipotu

Seriously don't you want to punch the guy after he says that?

Neat looking game though.
___________________

DayLahs

I did it for a reason. People know the wii is graphically disappointing and this is just another reason why

I think we are well aware of this Daylahs... if anything has been constant since E3 it's that the Wii will not have the greatest of graphics.

In anycase is the original one any fun?

Robjomak

If it plays well who cares if the graphics aren't uber awesome?

A.K.A If it looks good who cares if the gameplay isn't uber awesome?

The answer to your question is "gamers". Gamers care about every aspect of a video game, not just the ones that are in vogue to rant about at the given moment, or what a given game company tells them to care about. Stop being a tool in every thread.

Bazooka

It turns out those were PS2 shots.

Here's an actual Wii screen:



Looks pretty good imo.

Now that looks nice.
___________________
"I have captured the enemy for meat testing! Praise me! PRAISE ME!!!" -GIR
Wi-Fi ID: 1627 8934 4983 8539

Deacon

The answer to your question is "gamers". Gamers care about every aspect of a video game, not just the ones that are in vogue to rant about at the given moment, or what a given game company tells them to care about. Stop being a tool in every thread.

So "gamers" place equal importance on graphics and gameplay? That's ridiculous.

Excellent gameplay can make up for even the worst or most basic of graphics, as long as they're not so ugly that they impede the game in some way.

What really irks me is that some people are basing games solely on graphics- they'll decide just from looking at it whether they're interested in it, sometimes before any gameplay details are even announced. It's like graphics are some kind of acid test, and if the game fails then it's automatically dismissed.
___________________

So "gamers" place equal importance on graphics and gameplay? That's ridiculous.

Excellent gameplay can make up for even the worst or most basic of graphics, as long as they're not so ugly that they impede the game in some way.

Right you are Iris.

Deacon pull the stick out of your ass.

Iris

So "gamers" place equal importance on graphics and gameplay? That's ridiculous.

a) moron
b) douchebag
c) fanatic zealot

Which of these words best describes you? Because when I write "gamers care about graphics" and you respond as if I had said "graphics are as important as gameplay" I have to assume that you're either

a) too stupid to read
b) enough of an asshole to ignore what someone says to push your own point
c) so blinded by fanaticism over Nintendo's new religion of GRAPHICS DO NOT MATTER that you actually think that caring about graphics is in some way a sleight against gameplay

Iris

Excellent gameplay can make up for even the worst or most basic of graphics, as long as they're not so ugly that they impede the game in some way.

What really irks me is that some people are basing games solely on graphics- they'll decide just from looking at it whether they're interested in it, sometimes before any gameplay details are even announced. It's like graphics are some kind of acid test, and if the game fails then it's automatically dismissed.

What irks me is that this is a perfectly natural thought process and until Nintendo declared war on next-gen graphics, nobody cared. The first thing you see is graphics, so of course there's going to be an initial decision. When Mario Galaxy was shown, everyone's first reaction was "whoa graphics!" but it was okay because it was a positive reaction, and the Nintendo credo is that graphics only matter if they're in a Nintendo game and if they're good. Yet EVERY time someone mentions how incredible an Xbox or PS3 game looks, or when someone points out the obvious by expressing disappointment at a pathetic looking Wii screenshot, you morons chime in with your "four legs good, two legs bad!" bleating.

There's no anti-gameplay pro-graphics conspiracy out there; graphics are just another aspect of gameplay and it's what people are first confronted with, so there's really no choice but to judge graphics initially before more of a game can be seen. Stop being a robot about it, Reggie won't scratch your name out of his cool book if you admit that graphics matter.*

Deacon

A.K.A If it looks good who cares if the gameplay isn't uber awesome?

The answer to your question is "gamers". Gamers care about every aspect of a video game, not just the ones that are in vogue to rant about at the given moment, or what a given game company tells them to care about. Stop being a tool in every thread.

You're the troll, idiot. You say this about twice in every thread. Copy and paste.

Sup.
___________________
Kung Fu treachery.

Because when I write "gamers care about graphics" and you respond as if I had said "graphics are as important as gameplay

You did say this: "A.K.A If it looks good who cares if the gameplay isn't uber awesome?"

What I got out of that is that good graphics can make up for bad gameplay, thereby implying that the two have equal importance.

What irks me is that this is a perfectly natural thought process

Not for me, it isn't. I've never thought that way. It seems completely nonsensical to decide whether you want a game based on how it looks.

The first thing you see is graphics, so of course there's going to be an initial decision.

That's understandable. But judging a game entirely based on it's graphics, as some people do, is stupid. How many times has someone declared the next Game of The Year after seeing a few screenshots? (although to be fair, the same thing happened when the first Twilight Princess trailer was shown).

To me, graphics are probably the least important aspect of a game as long as they're not so bad as to be ugly or gameplay-affecting (like if blurry textures make it diifcult to see what's going on). And this isn't something I copied from Nintendo- I've felt that way ever since I started playing 3D video games.
___________________

Iris

You did say this: "A.K.A If it looks good who cares if the gameplay isn't uber awesome?"

What I got out of that is that good graphics can make up for bad gameplay, thereby implying that the two have equal importance.

Looks like you forgot to get off at the right stop on the sarcasm train.

Iris

Not for me, it isn't. I've never thought that way. It seems completely nonsensical to decide whether you want a game based on how it looks.

No it's not. Everyone likes to dabble their visual paintbrush in the palette that is graphical exellence. The graphics of a game have to draw you in. A game needs a distinct style. Graphically games have to be on top of their game to initially capture the audiences attention. The second I see a bad looking game I'm usually thinking, hey, this looks pretty ****ing awful and I don't really want anything to do with it.

That's bad. Graphics need to absorb you into the world to make it believeable, I shouldn't be scoffing and frowning around every turn because the enviornments look like poo. Graphics matter a whole lot. They're the deciding factor into how you percieve and react to the game's world.

Iris

That's understandable. But judging a game entirely based on it's graphics, as some people do, is stupid. How many times has someone declared the next Game of The Year after seeing a few screenshots? (although to be fair, the same thing happened when the first Twilight Princess trailer was shown).

Sweet. You've chosen a random tangent to follow that has nothing to do with someone's point. Nobody is saying "ohsh this game is the best game ever because it looks killer!"
Deacon's point is that graphics matter a lot more than you guys give them credit for. All this, "lawl graphics don't matter to me because i'm all about the gameplay. And I've got a mario tatoo to prove it!" is really getting annoying. Graphics matter a lot.

There's no measuring how much graphics comapred to gameplay matter. Graphics don't matter more than gameplay and gameplay doesn't matter more than grahpics. They are not values and rankings. A good game has good graphics and good gameplay. That's all there is to it.

Iris

To me, graphics are probably the least important aspect of a game as long as they're not so bad as to be ugly or gameplay-affecting (like if blurry textures make it diifcult to see what's going on). And this isn't something I copied from Nintendo- I've felt that way ever since I started playing 3D video games.

Hey guess what. Nobody cares what you think your opinion is. Your opinion blows.
___________________

Imp

Looks like you forgot to get off at the right stop on the sarcasm train.

No it's not. Everyone likes to dabble their visual paintbrush in the palette that is graphical exellence. The graphics of a game have to draw you in. A game needs a distinct style. Graphically games have to be on top of their game to initially capture the audiences attention. The second I see a bad looking game I'm usually thinking, hey, this looks pretty ****ing awful and I don't really want anything to do with it.

That's bad. Graphics need to absorb you into the world to make it believeable, I shouldn't be scoffing and frowning around every turn because the enviornments look like poo. Graphics matter a whole lot. They're the deciding factor into how you percieve and react to the game's world.


Sweet. You've chosen a random tangent to follow that has nothing to do with someone's point. Nobody is saying "ohsh this game is the best game ever because it looks killer!"
Deacon's point is that graphics matter a lot more than you guys give them credit for. All this, "lawl graphics don't matter to me because i'm all about the gameplay. And I've got a mario tatoo to prove it!" is really getting annoying. Graphics matter a lot.

There's no measuring how much graphics comapred to gameplay matter. Graphics don't matter more than gameplay and gameplay doesn't matter more than grahpics. They are not values and rankings. A good game has good graphics and good gameplay. That's all there is to it.


Hey guess what. Nobody cares what you think your opinion is. Your opinion blows.

I agree...so long as we are not basing graphics quality on pure polygon horsepower...on being able to see every blade of grass and an algorithm for every strand of hair.

Cause I'd argue Guitar Hero and Katamari are games that look great...but that has hardly anything to do with pushing hardware to bleeding edge.

Iris

You did say this: "A.K.A If it looks good who cares if the gameplay isn't uber awesome?"

What I got out of that is that good graphics can make up for bad gameplay, thereby implying that the two have equal importance.

Good graphics can make up for poor gameplay. Gameplay is more important, but the whole mindset that you have to put your support behind one aspect of a game over another is stupid, because graphics are a part of gameplay. They create immersion, either through photorealistic graphics or a style that draws you into a world like that of Killer7. Killer7 would NOT be the same game with the graphics of a game like Bloodrayne.

Iris

Not for me, it isn't. I've never thought that way. It seems completely nonsensical to decide whether you want a game based on how it looks.

It's inevitable to make a snap judgement. I never said people follow through with it, but it's impossible for a human not to react to a stimulus, so once given a screenshot a judgement is made. It's equally impossible to not make a judgement about the gameplay once you see that, but people usually see graphics first.

Iris

That's understandable. But judging a game entirely based on it's graphics, as some people do, is stupid. How many times has someone declared the next Game of The Year after seeing a few screenshots? (although to be fair, the same thing happened when the first Twilight Princess trailer was shown).

Yeah except nobody ever does that. The only games people pre-emptively name GOTY are sequels, or games that have already well-known and well-received gameplay elements. This is what I'm talking about with people overreacting to graphical appreciation. There's no graphics-only conspiracy out there; people just like good graphics, and they're easier to notice than good control or good sound. "Graphics" is one of the only elements of a game that non-gamers even have a word for. They never say "gameplay". They just say a game is fun, or it kicks ass, which is probably why internet nerds don't notice how much sway gameplay has on the market.

Iris

To me, graphics are probably the least important aspect of a game as long as they're not so bad as to be ugly or gameplay-affecting (like if blurry textures make it diifcult to see what's going on). And this isn't something I copied from Nintendo- I've felt that way ever since I started playing 3D video games.

To some people, sound is the least important part of a game. To others it sets the mood and it stays with them long after they're even still playing the game. Tonight I was playing Sonic 3 and realized that the reason I hate Carnival Night Zone, and most of Sonic 3, is that the music is so much worse than its predecessor (Sonic 2) or spinoff (Sonic & Knuckles). Graphics are another aspect. They're not even technically worse; I just don't like the look of most of the game compared to others.

It sucks that the N64/PSX ruined the appreciation for graphics, but for most people it's still an important part of the experience and it's frustrating to see companies still too incompetent to put together a game with decent graphics, six years after the generation that, according to Nintendo, reached the glass ceiling of what was possible.

Again, I don't see what's so hard about this. I just really can't understand why nobody here can say something about graphics without others jumping to the conclusion that it has anything to do with gameplay.

Deacon

The answer to your question is "gamers". Gamers care about every aspect of a video game, not just the ones that are in vogue to rant about at the given moment, or what a given game company tells them to care about. Stop being a tool in every thread.

Umm, I don't care about graphics that much and I make games....so yeah, you're wrong. Just admit you're a graphic whore.
___________________

DayLahs

wow, if you dont care about graphics you are really a ****ing n-bot.

and lol@you callin deacon a graphics whore.

Well, I care about them, but I don't think they have to use hardware that costs $400 to be good graphics. What matters more to most people is artistic direction, it's just that Deacon lacks the knoweldge of industry trends to realize it. Artistic direction is much more important than the sheer number of polys a system can push.

Deacon

Good graphics can make up for poor gameplay.

Yeah, they can, but not by much.

"Graphics" is one of the only elements of a game that non-gamers even have a word for.

Then why not say artistic direction. Kameo and Perfect Dark have better graphics than Zelda: TP, but do they look better? No, not at all. Not by a long shot.

It sucks that the N64/PSX ruined the appreciation for graphics, but for most people it's still an important part of the experience and it's frustrating to see companies still too incompetent to put together a game with decent graphics, six years after the generation that, according to Nintendo, reached the glass ceiling of what was possible.

And paragraph this reveals your (and Daylah's) complete misunderstanding of the industry. If developers were to continue up the ladder that the Xbox 360 and PS3 had created for them, there would be fewer and fewer games on the market (not to mention they'd be more expensive). Your attempt to justify this by saying that these companies are "incompetent" for not blowing their budgets on Pixar quality graphics (*ahem* Square Enix) pretty much shows that you put way too much weight on technical graphical know-how.

In this paragraph you're essentially saying that you'd rather have fewer games with good graphics, than more games with okay graphics. That's insane. The industry simply can't survive with fewer games than it has now. The huge developer drop off during the N64-PS1 era should serve as a warning for this type of logic.

Oh and I thin Heatseeker looks awesome by the way.

___________________

Good graphics can make up for poor gameplay.

Do you have an example?

Gameplay is more important, but the whole mindset that you have to put your support behind one aspect of a game over another is stupid, because graphics are a part of gameplay. They create immersion, either through photorealistic graphics or a style that draws you into a world like that of Killer7. Killer7 would NOT be the same game with the graphics of a game like Bloodrayne.

...it wouldn't be the same game but it could very well have the same gameplay. The way you play the game doesn't change with graphics, except in the most basic sense like 2D vs 3D or something.

My original point, which you jumped all over my ass about, was very simply that this game could play wonderfully, and that's what matters the most by far, and the graphics don't look BAD, they just aren't technically impressive for modern technology. Which I don't really care about.

And no one really does, on the inside, or else your current top ten games of all time wouldn't extend outside the current generation. It could look like an N64 game, and as long as that doesn't impede (good) gameplay, it doesn't really matter.

Game Guru

Umm, I don't care about graphics that much and I make games....so yeah, you're wrong. Just admit you're a graphic whore.

I don't recall saying that game designers care about graphics. I'll admit I like things to look good if that's what you're getting at though. I bought an NES because even though I already had Super Mario All-Stars, I preferred the 8-bit look of SMB. So, ok, I'm a graphic whore. I don't remember when it became a crime to appreciate graphics.

Game Guru

Well, I care about them, but I don't think they have to use hardware that costs $400 to be good graphics. What matters more to most people is artistic direction, it's just that Deacon lacks the knoweldge of industry trends to realize it. Artistic direction is much more important than the sheer number of polys a system can push.

I never used the word polygons when I said that graphics mattered. In fact I'm pretty sure that for years I've been saying that art direction is more important than polygon count. But they both fall under "graphics" so thanks for agreeing with my original point while insulting me.

Game Guru

Then why not say artistic direction. Kameo and Perfect Dark have better graphics than Zelda: TP, but do they look better? No, not at all. Not by a long shot.

Because you have to be at least 13 years old to join this board so I assume I don't have to hold people's hands through painful topics like "I like graphics to look good in games". It's not my fault "graphics" means polygon count to you, maybe broaden your meaning of the word.

Game Guru

And paragraph this reveals your (and Daylah's) complete misunderstanding of the industry. If developers were to continue up the ladder that the Xbox 360 and PS3 had created for them, there would be fewer and fewer games on the market (not to mention they'd be more expensive). Your attempt to justify this by saying that these companies are "incompetent" for not blowing their budgets on Pixar quality graphics (*ahem* Square Enix) pretty much shows that you put way too much weight on technical graphical know-how.

In this paragraph you're essentially saying that you'd rather have fewer games with good graphics, than more games with okay graphics. That's insane. The industry simply can't survive with fewer games than it has now. The huge developer drop off during the N64-PS1 era should serve as a warning for this type of logic.

Oh and I thin Heatseeker looks awesome by the way.

Once again I never said all games need to look photorealistic, but if the Wii is using the same basic developing tools as the GameCube, developers have had 6 years to make games look good, and really nothing we're seeing on Wii shows that they've learned that much. I don't really care what art direction a game takes, but if they take a photorealistic approach they should be able to meet that goal. If they can't it shows incompetence, either in programming or in the original art direction decisions.

And for the record, I would prefer fewer games that have a lot of effort and talent behind them then a slew of slipshod, lazily-developed games. I can't imagine someone would want more Disney tie-in games rather than a few fantastic titles.

Also what is this huge legacy of game-designing that you're resting on when you keep telling people that they don't understand the industry the way you do? Why even bring that up? I was speaking of my personal appreciation of the craft and the many people who feel similarly, not anything about the industry.

And yes the Wii screenshot looks alright. Not super impressive, but not total crap like the PS2 screens that sparked this whole debate.

Robjomak

...it wouldn't be the same game but it could very well have the same gameplay. The way you play the game doesn't change with graphics, except in the most basic sense like 2D vs 3D or something.

My original point, which you jumped all over my ass about, was very simply that this game could play wonderfully, and that's what matters the most by far, and the graphics don't look BAD, they just aren't technically impressive for modern technology. Which I don't really care about.

And no one really does, on the inside, or else your current top ten games of all time wouldn't extend outside the current generation. It could look like an N64 game, and as long as that doesn't impede (good) gameplay, it doesn't really matter.

The way you play Killer7 wouldn't change, but the game playing experience would. The gameplay would still be pretty solid, but it would lose a lot of what makes it the experience it is.

And honestly I don't know that any of my "top ten games" (I don't think I really have a top ten) were graphically unimpressive when I originally played them. Just because they look dated now doesn't really matter because it's the original experience that imprinted on me how great the games were. Sorry to burst your bubble but most people care about graphics, even most people that claim not to because they're afraid it doesn't make them a TRU GAM3R.

Anyway, to sum up (which really is just repeating what everyone misunderstood in the first place): graphics aren't the most important part of a game, but they do matter, and to say different is either hypocrisy (because everyone on this board spooges over a good looking Nintendo game) or just ignorance.

Deacon

I assume I don't have to hold people's hands through painful topics like "I like graphics to look good in games". It's not my fault "graphics" means polygon count to you, maybe broaden your meaning of the word.

Perhaps you should use another word to more accurately convey the meaning your words. That's what's so great about the English language, it's a pool of all the other major languages (Latin, French, German, even some Spanish), so it has the largest vocabulary.

Once again I never said all games need to look photorealistic, but if the Wii is using the same basic developing tools as the GameCube, developers have had 6 years to make games look good, and really nothing we're seeing on Wii shows that they've learned that much.

Once again this leads into cost. I bet Resident Evil 4 costed about as much as a 360 game to produce because of the very complicated coding and optimization that HAD to take place to fit the game within GameCubes 64MB of RAM. Developers don't like to squeeze every last drop of power out of a system very often, so just deal with it. Yeah there isn't much excuse for crap like Call of Duty and Ubisoft's rally game (or whatever that's called), but to say every game should look as good as Okami or RE4 is expecting a bit too much in my view.

And for the record, I would prefer fewer games that have a lot of effort and talent behind them then a slew of slipshod, lazily-developed games. I can't imagine someone would want more Disney tie-in games rather than a few fantastic titles.

Well, I couldn't disagree more, just because a game doesn't have stunningh graphics doesn't mean it's lazily developed. Your desire for fewer games is bad for both the industry and all consumers. There ARE people out there that LIKE Disney games. Just because you don't doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

The golden age of gaming (SNES vs. Genesis), had plenty to of games to offer, and all of the games didn't look the best, but they were still fun as hell. That was a time when you could essentially almost pick any game off a rental shelf and know you were going to have a good time.

I was speaking of my personal appreciation of the craft and the many people who feel similarly, not anything about the industry.

I'm just explaining to you why stuff isn't the way you want it when it comes to graphics, and why you shouldn't expect so much out of every developer. If you keep on pouting about graphics, you can keep on pouting while the rest of us are having fun.

Anyway, to sum up (which really is just repeating what everyone misunderstood in the first place): graphics aren't the most important part of a game, but they do matter, and to say different is either hypocrisy (because everyone on this board spooges over a good looking Nintendo game) or just ignorance.

Well, yeah they matter (well, artistic direction does at least).


___________________

Once again I never said all games need to look photorealistic, but if the Wii is using the same basic developing tools as the GameCube, developers have had 6 years to make games look good, and really nothing we're seeing on Wii shows that they've learned that much.

QFT

Deacon

I played it for both reasons but in the end more for the story than anything else. And well conceived and implemented graphics are an element of a good game so that second question is kind of out of place.

Oh and someone asked for an example where good graphics bail out mediocre gameplay. I guess Pojo just asked again which makes my answer slightly more poignant.

My answer would be the entire RPG genre. Turn-based RPG battles could really be played out without any graphics at all, just numbers and words, because there's no need at all to see what's going on since input is in steps rather than reactionary. The story could be thoroughly conveyed with 8-bit pixels rather than FMV. But the dazzling effects during battles and photorealistic cutscenes create an experience that time and again brings the world what are hailed as the greatest games in existence, and probably the most hardcore fans in the market.

And I'm not trashing on RPGs, but their graphics have always been on the cutting edge of present technology and it's lunacy to think that isn't a huge factor in their success, or why you guys personally love them.

I actually like FF because the first one was basically a D&D world. And the battles played out almost exactly like on the table top. That's why I got into that one actually.