bardicverse said:
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?
|
Yes, NES had great games and the graphics aren't very good, but they also had many poorly designed games too. If you had to choose between which generation to play in which would you pick? Gameplay isn't just the scenarios you run through in a game, but the entire experience you go through while playing a game. Have you seen the 8-bit remake spoofs of things like Shadow of the Colossus and FFVII? Although they aren't "bad" they lost much of their charm and impact between the two generations. It's not that graphics "always" add to gameplay, but there are plenty of instances where I'd be disappointed if the game hadn't been made on PS2 or PS1 or Xbox 360 ect. Some games and concepts rely completely on the horsepower of the newer consoles to create the experience necessary for the game to be what the devs envisioned.








