Does more power really mean a better game?

[TomaTito]

Pemalite said:

I remember when Unreal Tournament 2003 was first released on PC... That game was such a big step up visually of what came before... Yet it didn't technically play any different from the game it was succeeding... Which was Unreal Tournament 99'.

However, Unreal Tournament 2003's visuals was such a big leap from the orginal title with tons of geometry, particle effects, lighting and shadowing... It wasn't unusual to see people jump and shoot at their own shadow. (It's a twitch shooter remember.)

The improved graphics actually made you play differently and be more cautious... It also helped significantly with immersion, you got more invested in the game as it was more believable.

I am always under the belief that graphics doesn't replace gameplay, they both lend credence to each other, you can also have both.

Could be, I continued playing UT99, less resource heavy. In Uni we would take the computer room, download the demo and have an instagib lan party :)

You can also look at the strategy genre, the jump to 3D made the games harder to enjoy for me. I didn't see the benefit from C&C or AoE, you saw less had to deal with the camera, when the isometric view was quick and easy. There are more 2D to 3D failed attempts...

Still this a case by case situation. There are obviously games that the main selling point is the presentation while others aim for interaction, and as you mention some complement each other. Like someone said before, with a given hardware (which always improves), "good game design makes good games".