the jump from 2d to 3d was bigger than the jump from sd to hd

hd adds pixels and makes the picture sharper and more detailed for sure

but 3d allowed new gameplay...allowed u to play new genres and play games that couldn't really be done in 2d

motion/ir is the same way...new gameplay, games that couldn't be done with gamepads, while hd just makes the game look better

See I agree with the statement Gameplay > Graphics. But I believe theres an even more important fact as well Gameplay+ Graphics > Gameply OR Graphics. I do love how everyone assume that if a game looks great it's just going to play like ass :x

Legend11 said: The Ghost of RubangB said: Oh, and @Legend11's Nintendo fan stereotyping... I make the graphics argument for the 4th generation, but I don't for the 6th generation. By the time the Cube came out, I stopped caring about graphics entirely. I didn't even have a Cube. I played StarCraft for that whole generation. I almost majored in StarCraft, actually. Here's the thing.  Most of the people making threads like this are Nintendo fans.  And what I find interesting is if graphics really are unimportant or holding back games why aren't 360 and PS3 fans making such threads?  Surely the people playing the games with the very graphics in question should be the ones to complain if they feel that the games on those systems are inferior to the ones from last generation.  Surely there must be at least a few honest ones that would say "Hey the games this generation really suck compared to last generation" if that were the case.  Yet I don't see that happening.

of course it's Wii fans making these threads...people who choose gameplay over graphics choose the wii...people who choose graphics over gameplay choose ps360

Chronotrigger I agree that "Gameplay+ Graphics > Gameply OR Graphics" but usually when a game is being made the budget won't allow for both to be fully developed unless it is a giant blockbuster. At least that is my opinion. You can have both, but it comes at a big price tag in development.

My problem lies with graphics whores and their definitions of what makes a game look good:

Polygons, AF, AA, Lighting, Shadows, Hi-Res Textures, HD

Excuse my french here but give me a fucking break.

Fact is, a good visual STYLE will always look better than a visual tech demo (I'm looking at you Killzone 2 and Crysis)

Let's have some more Wind Wakers, Okami's, Killer 7 / NMH's, Mario, Timesplitters - a very small handful of examples off the top of my head that look brilliant not because of technical prowess but solid art direction.

I also would like once more to say again that I still believe the best looking game ever made is hands down Yoshi's Island! ;)

Yoshi's Island > Killzone 2

How does that look eh?

Yeah but at the same time they're plenty of developers out there who manage to do it ^^ As someone mentioned above a visual style of course helps, and the budgets don't HAVE to be astronomical, I haven't really heard much from Bioshocks dev cost, or COD4, yet both are considered to have amazing graphics and gameplay :P

Fastrabbit09 said: Legend11 said: The Ghost of RubangB said: Oh, and @Legend11's Nintendo fan stereotyping... I make the graphics argument for the 4th generation, but I don't for the 6th generation. By the time the Cube came out, I stopped caring about graphics entirely. I didn't even have a Cube. I played StarCraft for that whole generation. I almost majored in StarCraft, actually. Here's the thing.  Most of the people making threads like this are Nintendo fans.  And what I find interesting is if graphics really are unimportant or holding back games why aren't 360 and PS3 fans making such threads?  Surely the people playing the games with the very graphics in question should be the ones to complain if they feel that the games on those systems are inferior to the ones from last generation.  Surely there must be at least a few honest ones that would say "Hey the games this generation really suck compared to last generation" if that were the case.  Yet I don't see that happening.   of course it's Wii fans making these threads...people who choose gameplay over graphics choose the wii...people who choose graphics over gameplay choose ps360

There are many games on the 360 and PS3 that have good gameplay.  So your claim is incorrect.

Legend11 said: Fastrabbit09 said: Legend11 said: The Ghost of RubangB said: Oh, and @Legend11's Nintendo fan stereotyping... I make the graphics argument for the 4th generation, but I don't for the 6th generation. By the time the Cube came out, I stopped caring about graphics entirely. I didn't even have a Cube. I played StarCraft for that whole generation. I almost majored in StarCraft, actually. Here's the thing. Most of the people making threads like this are Nintendo fans. And what I find interesting is if graphics really are unimportant or holding back games why aren't 360 and PS3 fans making such threads? Surely the people playing the games with the very graphics in question should be the ones to complain if they feel that the games on those systems are inferior to the ones from last generation. Surely there must be at least a few honest ones that would say "Hey the games this generation really suck compared to last generation" if that were the case. Yet I don't see that happening. of course it's Wii fans making these threads...people who choose gameplay over graphics choose the wii...people who choose graphics over gameplay choose ps360 There are many games on the 360 and PS3 that have good gameplay. So your claim is incorrect.

I think you missed the point.  If I'm correct, Fastrabbit's point was that the 360 and PS3 chose to advance in graphics and power and digital distribution.  The Wii chose to advance in controls, and thereby gameplay and game design.  That's not to say that the 360 and PS3 shun good gameplay -- that's a ridiculous strawman -- but they are not innovating there as much as the Wii is, because they have hardware limitations that the Wii does not, just as the Wii has hardware limitations that the 360 and PS3 do not. 

Final-Fan said: Legend11 said: Fastrabbit09 said: Legend11 said: The Ghost of RubangB said: Oh, and @Legend11's Nintendo fan stereotyping... I make the graphics argument for the 4th generation, but I don't for the 6th generation. By the time the Cube came out, I stopped caring about graphics entirely. I didn't even have a Cube. I played StarCraft for that whole generation. I almost majored in StarCraft, actually. Here's the thing. Most of the people making threads like this are Nintendo fans. And what I find interesting is if graphics really are unimportant or holding back games why aren't 360 and PS3 fans making such threads? Surely the people playing the games with the very graphics in question should be the ones to complain if they feel that the games on those systems are inferior to the ones from last generation. Surely there must be at least a few honest ones that would say "Hey the games this generation really suck compared to last generation" if that were the case. Yet I don't see that happening. of course it's Wii fans making these threads...people who choose gameplay over graphics choose the wii...people who choose graphics over gameplay choose ps360 There are many games on the 360 and PS3 that have good gameplay. So your claim is incorrect. I think you missed the point.  If I'm correct, Fastrabbit's point was that the 360 and PS3 chose to advance in graphics and power and digital distribution.  The Wii chose to advance in controls, and thereby gameplay and game design.  That's not to say that the 360 and PS3 shun good gameplay -- that's a ridiculous strawman -- but they are not innovating there as much as the Wii is, because they have hardware limitations that the Wii does not, just as the Wii has hardware limitations that the 360 and PS3 do not.

Fastrabbit never mentioned innovation in his claim, he simply mentioned gameplay and claimed that people who buy 360s and PS3s simply do it because they put graphics over gameplay.  Which is ridiculous when you consider how many great games with great gameplay are on those systems and how many people bought them for that reason.

I agree with Legend that that did not appear to be fastrabbit's intention, but I also agree with Final Fan that many people bought Wiis because it represented an advancement in gameplay.