Except this comes down to what I've been saying the whole time, it's the team not the power of the console since that could be turned into, hey do you want Killzone 2 or Killzone 2 with Shellshock 2 graphics...

Thus games are better if they're made by teams with talent

Actually as a singleplayer shooter, Crysis is better than Halo gameplay-wise.

And btw. counter-trolling (your last sentence) isn't better than trolling (SKeeuk's last sentence)

I wasn't trolling. I didn't mean that sentence in any way.

I was mocking his post.

I get what you're saying and agree, OP. Mind-blowing graphics are amazing, but they don't make a game good. On the heirarchy of what makes a game good, graphics go into the "icing on the cake" category. Meaning they can make a game better by being better (and by graphics I don't neccesarily mean poly count or lack of jaggies, because well done 2D games or a well done DS game is "better" than a crappy done 2D game or DS game, and it may not have to do with resolution or jaggies) but they are not a core part of what makes that game good. Of course there is a baseline, I mean if you can't tell the difference between your character and a tree, well that's going to affect the gameplay.

I really think it's a function of the fanboy spazgazm that is the interwebs. Or I like to call it "You piss on my leg and I'll piss on yours, and we'll see who gets wetter."

Great graphics are just another piece of the pie.  Let's face it,  many of the games at the time of their release that were considered to be 'great' games not surprisingly were considered to have 'great' graphics at their time as well.

For people to say that graphics aren't every bit as important as any other part of a game are just delusional or trying to justify their exclusive Wii ownership. 

As another another poster mentioned earlier in the thread,  otherwise we would just be working on gameplay innovations for our square block character.

Graphics matter just as much as any other part of the game.  Not one person on here could deny that Super Mario Galaxy 2 wouldn't be a 'better' game with better graphics.  Period. 

I subscribe fully to this. Graphics, music and design are all conducive to a good atmosphere.

However, and this isn't directed toward you dtewi, I think it would be rather silly to put any sort of wieghting scale on these factors. I think it's also silly to put any sort of weighting on the comparison of gameplay and graphics - two wildly different aspects of gaming that typically are necessary for an enjoyable gaming experience.

These discussions are nearly always fruitless as they typically are devoid of context (some genres lend themselves more heavily toward atmoshere as opposed to crisp, tight gameplay - the opposite is true of many genres as well. Obviously there is an incredible amount of middle-ground here) and completely lacking in consideration of what the gaming experience means to the individual. Most importantly, nearly everyone tries to fragment games into mutually exclusive aspects and compare them.

Regardless of the medium, you'll always have the Dorian Gray - type. Whether it'd be realism, cartoony, or whatever the taste, aesthetics are the trump card. Several games come to mind, Big Fish - a movie, immediately comes to mind for me. Some may see it as shalow, I however, take no issue with some enjoying (or even preferring) something for simply aesthetic preferences. Some just place more value in that than they do with gameplay.

I think many of us look at this as far too simplistic - which would you prefer? a gorgeous game with virtually no gameplay; or an ugly game with exquisite gameplay. Given the technology we have and our immediate access to information , we're rarely faced with having to choose between two absurd extremes anyway. Frankly, it's a waste of time even discussing it. I think it simply comes down to what one values more to their gaming experience: atmosphere (a culmination of music, graphics and design) or gameplay.

Though it seems absurd to me, at first thought, for one to claim graphics as a more valued aspect of gaming than gameplay, but I think a legitimate claim can be made.

lmao..

You haven't experienced it like we have.. there are games that the graphics make the game itself a vastly superior experience to anything out there in the same genre..

For example Killzone 2.. has terraficly realistic Storms over head of you in additon to a wind of flying dust/particles as you walk, and the rumble being pushed by that wind itself.. it's just a magnificant art istic experience.. and I honestly say if KZ2 didn't have that feeling from its graphics, it would be a piece of shit. Call me a graphics whore, but FF XIII's beauty is truely what makes it unique.. and it's story is good, but it's graphics just make you want to play it..

I never had a PS2, and I have always been a graphics lover.. you can't say "oh who cares about graphics" because sometimes the graphics do actually make the game.. as ignorant as that sounds, it's true. Look at Flower.. Look at pixel junk eden..  what would those games be without there magnificent graphics style?

best thing about ps3 exclusives is that they have the best graphics and be a great game

Avatar was a good movie an underlining "save the planet, dont destroy the forests" moral. The reason most people dont like it is because they dont see this and see it as a pointless action flick with random love scenes. If anything its a movie that has been directed by someone who played way to many old school shooters and watched quite a few animes and rolled it into a movie to spread protectionism of our greenlands.

I haven't seen any Godfather movies... so couldnt tell you if its good or not.

And don't judge a person's intelligence based on their movie tastes either. I myself loved all the Spiderman movies, but I also love Gran Torino, Across the Universe, No Country for Old Men, and The Green Mile. Just because I enjoy the stupider movies doesnt mean I dont enjoy the artistic and/or highly moral based movies. Its all about taste and enjoyment. I'm pretty sure someone like Mr. Steven Hawking would, if he could, enjoy Crysis as much as he would a movie like The Watchmen, and we know he is a very intelligent man.

He didn't say taste, he said could tell the difference between the two, being one movie full of morals, ethics, and a thought provoking tale, and on the other hand you have things like Avatar. 

It did have the save the planet thing going in it, but along with that a totally unimaginative plot, with very cliche lines, like the metal they're looking for is "unobtainium"... if half as much thought went into the plot of that movie as went into the imagining of the world and bringing it to life, then it would have been a movie for the ages.