The creativity x techniques achievement discussion.

[DonFerrari]

F0X said:

It doesn't make much sense to seperate the discussion of graphics from gameplay when the graphics exist to serve gameplay. In fact, it's ideal to refer to graphical achievement in terms of how much gameplay benefits from it... and the same applies to judgement of aestetics.

I agree that unless taste or opinion is implied in those statements, then they carry little weight.

I'm only scratching the surface of why your comparison doesn't work - from what I read, you see to claim that PS4/XB1 graphics are comparable to the masterful technique of Joyce and Mario Kart is perfectly anologus to the broad appeal of Harry Potter. Is there grounds for a comparison? Perhaps, but without more specificity/clarity on your part, I could spend a long time meditating on all of the reasons why it doesn't make total sense (Harry Potter is about racing? It has gameplay? Ulysses and Crysis are in the same boat?). I see the point you want to make, but an argument presented with "enough sense" is unideal.

So in the same sense should we score nintendo gameplay bad because their graphic is inferior to ps4/x1? I put explicity that the discussion is purely on graphics basically to avoid this pitfall.

There is ground. Ps4/X1 uses complicated techniques to display graphics with ultra fidelity. While Nintendo use simpler techniques but enphasize in other aspects to make their characters more likeble. For the comparison to make sense I would have to use a book about race? Do it even make sense for you? Ulysses have a good technique (comparable to Crysis) and good history (not comparable to crysis lack of good gameplay and story) but in the technical prowess of graphic they would be in the same boat (until games with greater techniques comes).