Do graphics add gameplay?

[xeroxm3]

bardicverse said:

nitekrawler1285 said:

I have played games from the atari 2600 on. I can't claim to have owned every video game system but I do have quite a bit of experience in playing them.

Super Metroid was a great game for it's time. However Metroid:Fusion and Zero Mission while having only slightly better graphics are much better games. Namely because they include things to help the player realize what needs to be accomplished and where. Maps with highlights of items and necessary rooms. Visual aids(graphics) to the player to keep them on track.

Nintendo has experienced so much success by making sure that gamers aren't penalized because games aren't accessible(via interface). I think when used correctly graphics do the same thing. They don't need to be eyemeltingly gorgeous simply relavent to aiding the player in his goals(the reason I used a game that hadn't graphically evolved much as my example). Whlie there isn't much of difference in HD and SD gaming I think that's because HD developers aren't thinking about it in those terms and tend to prefer more poly's and partical effects. It's a shame.

P.S. So how would you play a videogame with no graphics? since they obviously aren't relevant to the gameplay.

 

Visual cues are different from the graphics that people here or anywhere else talk about. While you are right, they are graphics, when people compare Wii graphics to HD console graphics, they're referring to textures and models, not HUDs, etc which you reference here. So it really depends which aspect of graphics you're talking about - 3D or 2D.

And I answered your question before - a videogame with no graphics is not a videogame. the part of the name, "video" implies graphics, so you're basically asking me how would I paint a tree that doesn't exist.

Gameplay is a series of balances, such as weapon strength, player movement speed, physics implementation, AI, etc. Graphics is the things of 3D and 2D modelers - chracters, weapons, levels, animations, textures. The two elements are necessary to make a videogame, but they are highly independent of each other. The meshing together of a gun model, for example, with the functionality, damage power etc, doesn't come until the very end of the creation of both elements. The gameplay doesn't care what the gun looks like, it could be a box for what it cares, but it knows how fast its going to fire and how much damage it will do. The graphics don't care about any of that, as long as the shape is what it wants to be, has its lighting and textures applied correctly and is running whatever animations it wants.

So at the end of the day, gameplay and graphics exist independently of each other, and only are combined to make the final product- a videogame. How the gameplay staff makes the gameplay work and how nice the modeling team does with the graphics are independent of each other. I'm sure you've played a lot of good looking games that handled and played like crap, and vice versa.

 

Your argument only works in the development process. The final product, the videogame, cannot have these things seperated really. Sure the gun can look like a box, but if it's a box wouldn't you wonder why it shoots? Graphics and gameplay go hand in hand because gameplay can't be represented without the graphics and likewise graphics aren't a game until you can play them. Trying to seperated the two is a little foolish when they rely on each other so heavily.