Do graphics add gameplay?

[vlad321]

xeroxm3 said:

megaman79 said:
Miyamoto spit in your face. Wii sports? Graphics = gameplay = bullshit

The argument isn't graphics = gameplay. The argument is gameplay + graphics = better gameplay. I believe this to be true in most cases.

EDIT: @bardicverse and vlad321: I completely agree good gameplay can overcome bad graphics, but I think using old games is a bad example. If the devs had the resources to make those games with the tech we have now would they still look like NES/Atari games? By today's standards with today's tech I believe that graphics most definitely add to gameplay. Back in the day they did the best they could with what they had to work with. These are very different times now. Same goes to System Shock Vlad. Would System Shock look like it does if they could have made it look like Bioshock?

 

Obviously not, but the fact remains that even in its current state, with almost a decade under its belt, it has deeper and more entertaining gameplay than many of the games that have come out since and some that are coming out in the future, from the looks of it. In all honesty, I think people should have just stoppped with UE2. You could make objects that appeared fully round there with no pointed polygons. Maybe with a few updates here and there to add fully dynamic shadows, per-pixel hit detection, AI, and other such mechanics which do not count as graphics (except for shadows , of course). Anything past that is just supporting huge developmental costs, GPU companies, and other such things with much less benefit in return. I can promise you just about any game that came out could have been released on a modified UE2 and the gameplay and the fun of the game would still be the same in its current state.