The switch from N64/PS to PS2/GC/Xbox graphics was awe inspiring. The switch from them to this generation, not so much. Graphics can only get so much better and from this generation on, they wontbe as important as before.

BTW my favorite game is Earthbound, whose graphics were "bad" even for the SNES time but I love it nevertheless. Gameplay > graphics

People downplay visual improvements now because the improvements simply aren't that big now, and it took less time than ever before PCs to pass consoles with Crysis this gen. There is nothing like 2D to 3D anymore. I have more fun playing Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask than I do playing Twilight Princess and a hell of a lot more than I do playing Heavenly Sword.

What good did graphics do for me? They don't make a crappy game any more fun or a good game any worse as long as they are good enough to convey the atmosphere of the game well. I'd much rather play Call of Duty 4 than Crysis even though Crysis makes Call of Duty look like a PS2 game, because it's a better game all around. You tell me a time that graphics made a game better for you, then we'll talk.

@FinalEvangelion,

If the controls don't improve the gameplay experience, they're called "tacked on." Why is it that when graphics don't improve the gameplay experience, they're not called "tacked on?" I could just as easily call any PS360 game a game with gimped controls and tacked on graphics.

If a game has the best graphics in the world but bad gameplay, it sucks.
If a game has the best gameplay in the world but bad graphics, it's most likely the greatest game ever made.

They can improve the graphics in the sequel. Ha!





@pearljammer,

Thanks. My arch-nemesis fkusumot, came up with it in his tag thread based on my Bowie fetish and my recent engagement. Yeah it's hard to argue with somebody with your avatar.

Well, if you're in the same "loose definitions of art club" as I am, then we really can't argue about art at all, because anything you want to call art is immediately art. Game graphics are definitely an art form on their own, as is game music composition and everything else. I have some favorite game looks and some favorite game sounds, and some favorite gameplay styles, and it's very rare for them all to combine so perfectly into the perfect game.

The only examples I can think of for games that I truly love to play, see, and hear, would be Mario games and Katamari games. Two of my favorite game designers with two of my favorite game composers, and the graphics are just right for both those series. I could play Marios and Katamaris forever.

I'd almost say the same for Portal, but it only had one song, haha.

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.

 I love earthbound too. That game was the best. I wish the other 2 will come out for the us.

 I think I'm in agreement, although it may cost a few more millions of dollars to tack on good graphics than to tack on a control scheme without much though.  My favorite games still to play are from the SNES and PS1 era.  Of course, alot of the graphics were good back then.

I think graphics are still important. But people tend to confuse good graphics with technical wizardry like resolutions, bump mapping and HDR lightning. Those things aren't goals, but means to create a certain feeling or atmosphere.

For example, I think Metroid Prime 3 for the Wii looks better than most PS360 games. Technically it may not be on par with let's say Resistance, but it LOOKS better, because the technical "wizardry" is used better to create a certain art direction, instead of bump mapping a texture just to say "hey! look at this bump mapped texture! looks great doesn't it!"

Im sometimes not impressed with some of the games dev show cause if you think about it history does repeat itself

2D and 3D are the same in a way, when the Atari systems came out the graphics looked very blocky (same thing with the introduction to 3D gaming)  then these two types of graphics started to improve dramaticly (2D sprites were becoming more detailed, 3D started to look less blocky and the textures were looking better, better lighting, shading etc)

You mean people like me? I think standards have fallen signifficantly this generation for gameplay and content. It's now acceptible for single player modes (even in single-player only games) to be under 10 hours, and some of the worst AI I've ever seen has been this generation (wave to your fans Assassin's Creed), and we eat up everything developers tell us as original, even when it's rehashed (High Bioshock, Mass Effect).

Honestly I think to this point high graphics games this generation (on average) have been pathetic. Thank god for Valve is all I can say.

You are a Nintendo fanboy in my opinion.  In fact to water down your message to it's most basic part it becomes "Everything on the PS3 and 360 sucks.".  The fact that you put down Bioshock, Mass Effect, etc for example shows just how much your opinion of said systems is worth.  It has gotten to the point where I know if a game is a 360/PS3 exclusive that you'll put it down for some reason.