By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bardicverse on 10 October 2008
Edit Thread
nitekrawler1285 said:
bardicverse said:
DMeisterJ said:
bardicverse said:
DMeisterJ said:
Yes, graphics matter tons.

but it doesn't have anything to do with gameplay

I think it does.

LOL Im telling you, as a dev, they are totally different elements taken care of two entirely different departments on a dev team.

For example - Lets say you're pushing a block to trigger a switch ( a la your average adventure game). No matter what the block looks like - whether a standard box or a very elaborate piece of a ruin, the object will react the same way to the switch via the coding. Graphics and gameplay are on entirely different tracks. It's not an opinion thing, its a fact of the way things are.

As someone said before, about FF7, the cutscenes and their "ooo" factor are pretty visuals, nothing more that actually enhances the gameplay or its mechanics. I'd even counter that to say that I hated the cutscenes in FF7 onward, because I felt they interrupted my game time.

 

What about FFVIII where they allowed you to move in some of the FMV sequences?

Lets say that the player doesn't instantly recognize the box as a piece of the puzzle because of how it looks. Does that not change the ease of playing the game? I would think it does. Graphics are an integral part of gameplay. It is how we distinguish and recognize what is going on. If you can't do that reguardless of how good the code is your experience in playing the game is hampered. Admittedly few games suffer from such horrible visuals but I believe both to be integral parts of the way we experience the gameplay. One might go as far as to say gameplay could not exist without graphics(how would you play the game? is it beamed into your brain?)

That would be like saying camera angles and lighting don't have any affect on movies when being able to see and interpret what is going on is crucial. While a large part of the movie might be acting if you cant tell whats going on(because of bad angles or bad lighting) then you probably wouldn't consider it a good movie reguardless of the good acting(that you probably missed a lot of due to poor lighting and angles).

Now you're just being silly. the term VIDEO game means that video is presented, which is graphical, whether it be that 8 bit box or that beautiful rendering of the arc de triumph. I have played games even with good graphics that I didnt recognize the piece as integral to getting to the next stage. I think that a person doesn't recognize the piece of the puzzle, then they need to explore the area and figure out what the next process is to continue on, thus the gameplay element. The gameplay is set for box A to be pushed into square B, regardless if it is 8, 16, 32, 64, or 128 bit in nature.

The problem becomes merely an issue of gaming veteran status. the NES offered great games with graphics that would now be abysmal even by handheld gaming standards, and they had great gameplay. So yes, you can have a solid game without solid graphics.

The argument these days is the shine level. What's the big diff between HD and SD gaming? The shine of the chars. Play Quake 4 on a SD monitor and then an HD one and you'll see exactly what I mean. So, in the current gen, does the shine of HD really drastically improve the gameplay of a game?