Isn't that the reallly last shooters have left to advance? Graphics, right?

American shooter fans are for the most part shallow and will buy a beautiful game. So, by getting people excited by good graphics is marketing, while it's the good gameplay that passes word of mouth.

Look, the problem is that this is an argument that has been argued and argued and argued... and then argued some more.

It's a dead horse.

We've all heard the arguments back and forth, been there, done that...etc.

The only thing this article can do is rekindle that argument.  360/PS3 fans will read it and take offense since one of the strengths of their consoles is graphics, Wii fans will agree with it since the Wii doesn't do the pretty stuff quite as well... and we'll all be right back where we were last year arguing the same things.

i took this quote from another forums, but it says what i wish to say:


"Graphics ARE very important in games, but that's not to say having the most realistic and techincally proficient graphics. ALL graphics are important, because they are what creates the art directionin a game. It's what sets the atmosphere, ambience, and overall tone of the game.

In survival horror games, it's the art direction of the visuals that helps convey suspence and fear for your life. In racing games, it's what conveys the sense of speed and frantic action. In shooters it's what gives the player the sense of chaos and destruction encompassing his world. This is why the graphics of games like GTA and SMG succeed, not for showcasing processing power, but for the tone of the world they convey.

So it's not really that "gameplay is more important than graphics" as so many here like to rally by. It's how the graphics complement and create the interaction of the gameplay for the player. When done well, they work together. It's a symbiotic relationship in that way, and you really can't have one without the other, which is why sub par graphics (for what a system is capable of in the times) is never acceptable."

  I didn't really feel it was. He didn't really say much that hasn't been said before. He talks about graphic "pimps" but singles out KillZone2 (despite there being plenty more of people he could finger) and doesn't really explore "pimp" concept that much which could be extended to the gaming media, mainstream media advertising focusing heavily on in-game cutscenes and cinematics, etc. Also no mention how a lot of "graphic pimp" developers seem to set-up thier actual gameplay to focuses on just watching stuff. Assassin's Creed was very bad about that between unskippable cutscenes, finishing animations, and long intros and outros largely padding how short, simple, and derivative aspects of the gameplay.

Came off as a calm but ultimately retreaded rant. 

with me it depends what kind of game it is weather the graphics bother me or not. for example i would have never ever played a spyro game if it looked realistic. but to be fair when it comes to gameplay there only so much you can do when the games a FPS. So to be able to make that game stand out you need good graphics. I mean would GeOW have been half as fun or popular if the graphics were like the wiis or ps2, i really doubt it. yes gameplay is important but when it comes to FPS, graphics is what counts

 I'll take beautiful graphics thanks. Crysis FTW!

I'm partically serious there. I want games that are both visually stunning that has decent to great gameplay.

There is nothing wrong with a game having good graphics (or art direction is the term we're really looking for) and the point of the article isn't saying that a game shouldn't concentrate heavily on graphics, it's saying that a game advertises only how good it looks and nothing else is troubling.

I agree with everyone that says they want a visually pleasing game. If I'm playing something I don't want to look at something that looks like Cruis'N (talking about modern games), I want something pleasing. What I don't want is a game that its only selling point is top of line (not even always pleasing) graphics.

-edit-

And even the Wii isn't immune to this.  We have things like Conduit that its only draw is that it's pushing the Wii hardware to its limit to show the Wii can make good graphics too.  Well that's fine and all, but I want to see something that tells me I actually want to bother playing that game. 

AGAIN: I don't know why sony has to reinvent the genre ,,,,Crysis got pariases and full score all around for good visuals and good physics(which are good for KZ2 aswell)

but when it's sony's turn they have to reinvent genre,,,this is getting tiresome,,,let's see how they review ninja gaiden 2,,,the game is basically the first one with updated graphics,,,for god sake even the save booths in ninja gaiden 2 are the same statues(with same color)as ninja gaiden 1 .I am sure they give it 9 and Still it's a good game solgan,,,,but if sony was doing this (like ratchet and clacnk)they get burned cause they didn't reinvent,,,hypocrisy much?

God, get this straight people: this isn't about Sony, MS, or Nintendo. It's about games that try to get hype by graphics alone. The article points out Killzone 2 but don't let that fool you that this is the only game that does that and only PS3 games are guilty of this. Take off your console defensive goggles for a moment and actually try reading what the article is trying to say.

Yeah, it is something that has been said over and over again but that's only because people have to bring the console wars into this and turn it into a fanboy flame fest.

-edit-

It's also not saying games can't concentrate on looking good.  In fact, please try to make your game look as good as you can.  Just when you're trying to hype your game, don't *just* sell us on how it looks. 

why do we have hd tv, high speed internet, the iphone, Jlo, Everything now are judge on looks, and games are part of this too. I am very happy with what Nintendo has done, by saying there more to games than just its looks.