Are long time gamers less impressed with graphics than newer gamers?

[Grahamhsu]

I think good gameplay is what truely defines a game. I'm not saying graphics are a bad thing but being a violin performance major at a music conservatory I can see many relations between graphics and performance.

For example, a player with excellent posture and good visual energy may be able to bulls*t a lot of musical ideas. The audience in general will respond saying "Oh he looks so confident and comfortable on his violin" How can they tell he's made a mistake without a score in hand or is just playing distastefully? However a player that plays from the heart and understands the chords and phrasing of the piece will be able to move the audience and communicate with them. Two players that can communicate with the audience can never be really compared if they both play equally well. At that point it all comes to personal preference as to who "plays better" because both performances are unique and can't be compared.

The visual player obviously adds a little bit to the performance, however it's been said that visual energy takes away from the music, too much movement could divert an audience from listening to instead seeing the performance. Just like too many shiny graphics can take away from the core game.

There needs to be a balance always between gameplay and graphics. It's been proven many times that bad graphics don't make a game bad, and that good graphics don't make a game good. Good graphics can make a game more enjoyable of course.

I believe the younger generation can't grasp the gameplay aspect as well because Gameplay is such a intangible term just as musicality is intangible. On the other hand graphics are extremely solid. It's easy to compare graphics and tell which one is better than it is to compare different gameplay because well that's just impossible...they're different and can't be compared most of the time.