Graphics vs Gameplay

[riderz13371]

JWeinCom said:

JayWood2010 said:

Graphics vs Gameplay -  JayWood2010

 The video game industry has aimed for realistic graphics for decades now and as we draw closer and closer to photo realism some people will argue that graphics does not matter. Others on the other hand strive for better graphics and buy a computer rig for 1000’s of dollars just to reach this goal.

 The question is, how much does graphics really matter. Why is it that people seem to love Mario so much? Why is it that a game like Angry Birds can outsell Crysis, or a game like Call of Duty outsells Battlefield? Why is it that Skyrim is able to sell 10’s of millions? Maybe it is because the broader audience wants good gameplay over the realism that you can find in high budget AAA games.

 

Skyrim sold tens of millions?  Not quite.  But it did sell quite well.  How?  First off, it had fairly nice graphics.  Moreover, it had an absolutely massive marketing budget.  Slipping Skyrim in this conversation is a little off

As for games like Mario and Angry Birds, it's a matter of simplicity.  The potential audience for Crysis is limited to people who have mastered using a dual analog controller (or PC and mouse), and have the skills necessary to succeed in an FPS.  The potential audience for Angry Birds is anyone with a finger and a smartphone.  Mario falls somewhere in between. These games aren't selling better because they have "better" gameplay (not saying they don't) but because of their accessibility.

I approve of this message.