Well, I was reading another forum lately, and found this gem : http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/JCGD_Volume_7/Ga-Ga-Graphics.html

The article is pretty good in itself to explain why graphics are not as important as some think, and why Wii Sports like graphics are good enough. But what is even better, is the view of the author on other matters or predictions, be they wrong or right, as he seems very insightful. So, the links at the end of the article are even better, and will push you to several other articles by the same author, from 10+ years ago, with some spot on, some slightly wrong.

You don't have to agree with this guy like I do, but I find this pretty interesting, as it explains the current market better than I could do it in english. And it can allow some people, perhaps, to understand what Nintendo says really, and not interpret it badly (like saying they said graphics are irrelevant).

We still need graphics, but in my opinion once you have a basic level of graphics (A Link to the Past is my baseline for total satisfaction) you need to flocus development time ad money on interactivity, level design and game mechanics. That is truly what sells games.

Unfortunately publishers that do this don't spend much on marketing because "it won't sell well anyway - consumers want graphics!" and their fears are "confirmed" when no-one buys it because they've never heard of it. How much is Halo hyped because of the graphics? The gameplay/level design/interactivity is pretty standard for an FPS: impersonal controller, shoot-the-bad-guys gameplay, reach-the-exit design. This needs to change, and Nintendo is getting there, but we need entirely new ideas about how to interact with a game and entirely new mechanics for gameplay and developers that are known in the industry for their level design not their artwork.

Sometimes we even need games that aren't really games at all. Brain Training. Animal Crossing. Wii Sports.

What about this:

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/1820/blockland00063yi8.png

It's called Blockland. It's online multiplayer, you play as a minifigure and can build with bricks, shoot at each other and drive.

 if there is one thing Halo is not it's about good graphics.... a lot of people wish them to be good this time..... but, it's probably the lowest of it's strenght.... I think you missed the point about halo because (if I understood) you are not a big fan of FPS and not at all into halo am I right ??? If I liked HAlo it's especially because I didn't felt that same old shoot the guy in front of you don't turn your back go straight to the exit.... thing... you something more to it... you don't have to go straight you can go in that little bulding... and then that passage next to the clif etc... use a hog or... a big tank... or even fly around... you have a reason to shoot those guys... they have a reason to shoot you.... you really know what's going on but need to know more... then you have the AI if you play in legendary you won't be shooting randomely at the first ennemy presenting to you but strategicement to the smartest and more powerfull first.... and that definition can change depend the number of each race present... a big group of grunt can be a bigger problem than 2 hunters... 

and then you have the multi player... where it's not all about shooting.. I actually spent more time doing stupid stuff with my friends on the map than fraging... lik looking for bugs... super jump contest... Hog race... banshee fight...

the thing is halo is putting together what a lot have appart.... that's probably why it worked so well....and it's probably why some hate it.... it's too complexe (not meaning they are stupid, but that they prefer a big frag game like Quake arena or maybe something more tactical like GOW etc...) 

Lol, with graphics you need gameplay, music, longevity and a good story(dependinng on your genre to a large extent). Basically a good example of this is the Metal Gear games( I find them a little short tho, I can do mgs 1 twin snakes in about 3 1/2 hrs now)

most of the games now are too short..... I mean who did finish tetris or super mario bros in 10 hours in normal level back then .... ok I know it cost money to make long game.... but still come on..... well now they do big saga.... MGS, HALO, GOW, mass effect... so basically you have a 30 hour game divided in 3 or more parts for 180+ bucks... that's what is happening now....

that's the reason I rarely play any game on the standard level of difficulty anymore...


now about graphics.... this one of the reason I play games... I fascinated by High quality graphics.... for me it's like being an actor in a virtual world.... VG is the only form of art where the audience can actively take part to it to enjoy it.... So a good game with bad graphics in my world it's like a well written song with a bad singer....
but for me good graphic doesn't mean photo realistic all the time.... a stylitic design like some games I have seen like hotel dusk on DS... are great too for me....
it depends what kind of game i'm playing.... but it does have a huge importance for me at the end.... you can give me the best concept/gameplay of the world if the look of the game is really bad I won't touch it because I won't enjoy it...

great article by the way

You know what?

So often I read reviews on big gaming sites, thousands of words. They talk about graphics. Then they talk about animation. Then about physics.

And my own honest wish while reading those reviews is: "Give me something about gameplay!"

In Germany "Gamestar" is the biggest magazine. They review their games on multiple pages of environment-friendly paper, they talk about effects, graphics, sound. But every time I read those reviews I don´t have a clu what the game is about.

It is really that bad, you don´t know what the game is about. And when you compare IGN PS3 with IGN Wii reviews you´ll notice the PS3 reviews contain much more graphical analysis.

I want my reviews about gameplay. I want my games to have a good level design, to look awe-inspiring not as realistic as possible.

It´s about what a game feels like not what it looks like, you don´t play graphics. Of course great graphics are a good thing, but how do we use them? Developers use better geometry models, better textures, but the Art style doesn´t get any better.

Which game has more chracter? Gears of War or Super Mario World 2: Yoshi´s Island?

It is the second one, believe it or not. Show Yoshi´s Island to your friends for five minutes, they´ll be totally stunned. Show Gears of War to them - they will hardly know which of those shooters you played with them. Yoshi? They´ll know for their lives.

Super Mario Bros. brought me to gaming. Why? Because it was such a fantastic game. It wasn´t about graphics in any way, it was about the experience. I still remember the first time I played Super Mario Bros. It felt good and I had to smile. It was completely new.

It was a big game on weak hardware and it was better than everything else back then and I want developers to use their damn fantasy and not their computers to give me my games.

There is so much you could do with games just nobody cares about.

Games could be art, we just have to make them a bit different. If my mother suddenly wants to train her brain because of a game that means the possibilities are endless for thi medium.

We just need our own Citizen Kane. It is just a matter of time. videogames are the medium of the future. We just have to get over those graphic craziness to create something new.

yeap that's why I read my reviews on amateur websites... were they don't earn money for it and give their bias advice on the game but at least put what I want to see... and I know what each writer likes so I can make my own opinion

Yep not important.

Gears sold as it did due to........, people go nuts over Crisis because of........

Fill in the blank.

Until (about) 2002/2003 people were still happy to play NES-like graphics on their Gameboy (color) system with very little concern for the "Graphics."

A couple of years ago I heard that the "best selling game" of 2004 wasn't Halo 2 or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas but was (in fact) a Pac-Man system that plugged into your TV; these were Atari games that were repackaged and sold for (IIRC) $30 and became a smash success at christmas.

These may seem like odd examples, and I'm certain people will claim that they're different from the home console market but I'm not too sure they really are. People are motivated to buy videogames and systems because they're inexpensive fun not because of their graphics. This seems unusual to a lot of people being that they represent the "core" gamer because they want Pixar level graphics in order to give them the most involved gameplay experience.

hum no you are right happy.... that's why the XBLA is awesome too.... I loved playing castelvanya again, i'll probably buy prince of persia, marathon, sonic, track'n field soon.... I have already a good bunch of them downloaded... that's what I like about XB I have the high end graphics... and every week for about 10 bucks I can get my hand on some arcade classic old hall of fame games... and some sweet new mini games....

hey the other day I spent 2 hours playing geometry war evolved... (still coundn't do a good score at that game lol but I love it :) )