What would you have rather had....new gameplay or amazing graphics?

himsahealer

himsahealer

Banned
The Wii is a great little console with some great games already, but it's hard for me to look at the games on it. I know graphics aren't everything, but imagine Zelda:Twilight Princess on a Nintendo system with the specs of either the 360 or PS3.

I think swinging around the Wii-mote is great for mini-games, and whatnot. But the Nintendo games I love aren't the mini-games. I love the epic games like Zelda and Mario, but I don't feel like swinging around the controller to do in-game actions.

At first the Wii seems so new, and so fresh. The new controller seems like it's an extension of your actual arm. It feels like your living out the game, but this doesn't last.

I would rather have a Zelda with graphics that are next gen, or I guess this gen. It's just so hard to go from shiny, beautiful textures to ugly, muddy textures.

I know graphics aren't everything, but they do immerse the player into the experience more, and it's atleast 50% of the gaming experience to have clear/beautiful graphics.

Does anyone feel the same way?
 
Better graphics don't immerse me even more; if anything, I feel less immersed. All I did when I was playing Gears of War was stare at how shiney those men were...but it didn't make me feel like I was a part of it at all. No, I'm not nearly shiney enough.

Zelda, on the other hand, fully immersed me. While fighting random enemies out in the field by swinging my sword doesn't do too much for me, there have been a few boss fights where I was swinging intensely, or smugly landing the final blow, and it felt AWESOME. That's something no other system could have, and I'd gladly trade graphics for that feeling anyday.
 
Both should be weighed equally. It's a popular emo factor to bag on graphics though. The Wii will have it's uses and so will my xbox 360 and Ps3. I wouldn't exclude any system as being better. Assuming the Wii can deliver some new games like the DS did.

but you are asking this in a wii forum so the outcome is pretty much assumed
 
I know this argument is going to go on for some time, but I'm enjoying the gameplay more than I'm enjoying high end graphics right now.

I rented The Godfather for the 360 the other day and it's a pretty impressive game visually speaking... but after 45 minutes of playing it... I was pretty bored with just sitting on my couch and went back to playing Wii Sports for the next hour or so.

I think the graphics issue becames a moot point if you're playing a very immersive game. I've only got about 3 or 4 hours into Zelda, but I haven't found the game lacking at all due to the fact that it's not running in an HDTV resolution.
 
I don't understand why people think Zelda is "hard to look at." The game is still gorgeous for what it is and the console it's on. And the games will look better.
 
[quote name='munch']I don't understand why people think Zelda is "hard to look at." The game is still gorgeous for what it is and the console it's on. And the games will look better.[/QUOTE]


agreed.

wtf is this shit? Zelda looks great.
 
To answer your question, the most currently played game on my Wii system is the Bomberman VC game. :)
 
For the time being, I'm happy with Wii graphics. Hell, PS2 graphics are good enough. But that might change over the next couple years. Imagine instead of releasing Gamecube, Nintendo released a slightly more powerful N64 with a motion-sensing remote. It might have seemed innovative at first, but after playing Halo, how would you have felt about Goldeneye quality graphics? Twilight Princess is a very nice looking game right now IMO, but will I be happy playing games that look like this for the next 5 years?
 
[quote name='munch']I don't understand why people think Zelda is "hard to look at." The game is still gorgeous for what it is and the console it's on. And the games will look better.[/quote]
I as well. The art (not graphics) is amazing. Look at the textures. someone painted all those little details in photoshop. It has a wonderfull sense of dzn that really gives me goose bumps.


[quote name='BIG5']For the time being, I'm happy with Wii graphics. Hell, PS2 graphics are good enough. But that might change over the next couple years. Imagine instead of releasing Gamecube, Nintendo released a slightly more powerful N64 with a motion-sensing remote. It might have seemed innovative at first, but after playing Halo, how would you have felt about Goldeneye quality graphics? Twilight Princess is a very nice looking game right now IMO, but will I be happy playing games that look like this for the next 5 years?[/quote]

I beat zelda 2 just a few weeks ago. man... good game. Why is it that link to the past is still a wonderfull game? the graphics are still beutfull becuse of the art. Good art is diffrent from good graphics. too many games have good graphics and not good art. Those will be the ones cast by the wayside, and the games with good art and gameplay will be immortal.
 
[quote name='BIG5']For the time being, I'm happy with Wii graphics. Hell, PS2 graphics are good enough. But that might change over the next couple years. Imagine instead of releasing Gamecube, Nintendo released a slightly more powerful N64 with a motion-sensing remote. It might have seemed innovative at first, but after playing Halo, how would you have felt about Goldeneye quality graphics? Twilight Princess is a very nice looking game right now IMO, but will I be happy playing games that look like this for the next 5 years?[/QUOTE]

Interesting point.

[rose-colored glasses]

The lower graphical ceiling for the Wii means that devs can maximize their game engines from a purely technical standpoint much earlier in the console's life cycle (not to mention the fact that the architecture is supposed to be very similar to a GC in the first place)...

This could mean that we're in for an RE4-level game in the first year or so instead of at the very end...

... and potentially a plethora of RE4-quality games throughout the entirety of the Wii's five-year cycle...

... and quality game experiences are fun no matter how technically superior the game is...

[/rose-colored glasses]
 
Well personally I always just wanted nintendos system to have awesome graphics, but sadly it doesnt. Either way, I still will buy Nintendo simply because they ar ethe only ones who have games I like. I don't like constant shooters with blood and gore thrown in and an M slapped on. And thats all the 360 has, shooters. PS3 I might get in awhile once some better games come out, but Nintendo constantly makes games I enjoy, so good graphics or not I'll get it.
 
I dunno, maybe I could understand if the graphics got worse or something, but why were gamecube graphics fine a few months ago (or at least before 360), but now they're hard to look at?

I mean we're not even talking years here, barely a year if you felt gamecube graphics were suddenly terrible as soon as the 360 came out.
 
The innovative gameplay have me hooked on this thing. I'm not a huge graphics junkie so I think the games look pretty good.
 
[quote name='BIG5']Twilight Princess is a very nice looking game right now IMO, but will I be happy playing games that look like this for the next 5 years?[/quote]

Im not an industry insider or anything but it's a gut feeling i have that the WII isn't meant to last that long. I just have this feeling that it is more of a system to last until HD becomes more widely spread to people's homes. Since they are making money from the very beginning this won't be a problem for Nintendo. The next system they release will be a full blown graphics system with a 2nd generation of motion sensor control. I might be 100% wrong on this one but it's just something i have thought for awhile.

I will add that i have absolutely no problems with the graphics. I actually thought Madden 2007 looked good. And I for one would take Dreamcast (N64 might be stretching it) quality graphics if it meant a new inventive way to control the games.
 
[quote name='BIG5']For the time being, I'm happy with Wii graphics. Hell, PS2 graphics are good enough. But that might change over the next couple years. Imagine instead of releasing Gamecube, Nintendo released a slightly more powerful N64 with a motion-sensing remote. It might have seemed innovative at first, but after playing Halo, how would you have felt about Goldeneye quality graphics? Twilight Princess is a very nice looking game right now IMO, but will I be happy playing games that look like this for the next 5 years?[/QUOTE]



It's different. N64 to the Gamecube was a huge leap. this gen, the leap has split everyone down the middle.
 
Before the Wii, I really didn't imagine a gaming experience that was simple enough and immersive enough that my wife and even my 5 year old daughter could easily get into. I can tell you that neither of them care less about the graphics:). I can honestly say I can't either at this point....being able to have this much fun and actually have them included rather than watching is priceless. The graphic powerhouse systems definitely have their place, but so does the Wii, no matter what the graphics look like...
 
Honestly, I'm a fair bit behind on PS2 games, and they look great to me. And as far as I've heard, compared to the cube PS2 graphics are bad. I think the graphics leap this generation is not as great as in previous ones (the possible exception being PS3). The fact that 360 still only uses dvds needs to limit the potential in my mind. I'm sure we'll start seeing multi-dvd games on 360, much like all the 3 or 4 cd PS1 games.

I also think the difference between games that make use of "art" as opposed to those that just try to look real can play a big role. The real looking ones get dated very fast, but games like katamari or disgaea age well even though the graphics were never really pushing the system.
 
Agreed on the leap being not as huge. I mean NES to SNES was basically the same as N64 to Gamecube... it was a huge jump. Here they aren't doing much except making blades of grass visible...
 
I'm fine with a focus on gameplay in place of graphics. We should see a lot of great, innovative games as a result of the direction of the Wii.
 
I want better sound. fuck graphics and gameplay. I'm blind and have no limbs.
 
Wow, my post was quoted 4 times. I'm flattered.

[quote name='White-Wolf']
I beat zelda 2 just a few weeks ago. man... good game. Why is it that link to the past is still a wonderfull game? the graphics are still beutfull becuse of the art. Good art is diffrent from good graphics. too many games have good graphics and not good art. Those will be the ones cast by the wayside, and the games with good art and gameplay will be immortal.[/QUOTE]

I think you're right. LttP is still my favorite Zelda. If Nintedo wanted to release a slightly more powerful SNES and make great 2D Mario, Metroid, and Zelda games, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
 
Zelda has it right in the two graphical areas that REALLY pull me out of a game: frame rate and animation quality.

I've yet to see TP stutter at all (and it better not running GC graphics on an at least slightly increased-spec machine). And the animation of the characters is flawless. I don't care how many hairs and how much sweat is rendered on a character, if they walk like they have 2x4s taped from their ankles to their hips, it shatters that suspended disbelief more than blurry textures in my book.

I hope for more stylized games on the Wii. Hyperrealism doesn't appeal to me much because the more real it become the more you notice the goofs. If Zelda were hyper-realisitic looking and he moved like he moves in OoT, WW, or TP, it would look totally bizzare. But the style of the game can allow a lean more toward animation / cartoon movement vs. real life movement.

Really, any graphical level done right, is great. Done poorly and the game suffers almost immediately. If the new controls are done right and don't become just gimmicks in a year or two and the style of the game holds up, I'm a happy camper.
 
*sigh*

What do you mean what would you have rather had? Don't we have both? Don't the 360 and PS3 still exist in the same universe as the Wii? There are other games out there that have shit your pants graphics, they exist, I swear! Maybe they don't have the same name as the Nintendo franchise, but if graphics matter that much to you, buy a fucking 360 or ps3. If they don't, buy a Wii. It's that simple! Case closed!

It's like asking would you rather shit gold turds or be bangin hot chicks all day. Both of them would be nice.
 
I feel that there is no reason why there couldnt have been both!

If the 50 dollars of Wii Sports weren't bundled with the Wii and those 50 dollars were put onto making the console grpahically strogner, it would be a much better console.
 
New gameplay. Last gen graphics were fine for me as I don't like realistic graphics anyway (play games to take a break from the world, prefer cartoony games, fantasy settings etc).

Plus I've just never been a graphics whore or videophile in general. In no huge rush to get an HDTV, and spend a lot of time on my DS and emulating 8 and 16 bit games rather than playing current gen stuff etc. Gameplay is by far king to me, graphics are just the icing on the cake (and I'm not much of a sweet tooth). :D
 
Gameplay as long as the game is not fucking ugly (I mean unplayable ugliness). I could care less how the game looks, sure HD makes games looks great I will agree, but I would rather play something innovative then look at something innovative.
 
OMG its all about the graphics!!! If I play a PS1 game now my eyes start to bleed from the agony. Every single game that was not in HD should be burned and never spoken of again. The graphics are all that matters and that's why everyone owns a PSP. I bought a $2000 graphics card for my PC so I can play the newest game that looks amazing from the screenshots. I'm not sure if its any good but it looks amazing so who cares? I'll have to buy a new video card in 6 months but the graphics will be night and day by then. I bought Kameo just so I could pause the game and stare at the blades of grass.

Ok now truthfully its becoming more and more obvious to me that graphics are a pretty subjective thing at this point. I never realized how many gamers were complete videophiles. Personally there are still PS2 and Cube games that look pretty damn good to me. When I was a little kid playing games in the arcade I always thought graphics would turn out to look like Dragon's Lair rather than to emulate real life. When people point out muddy textures in Zelda I don't see how they could really enjoy any game. I do realize it might just mean more to certain people. I'm not one of them. I find it funny that the people who complain about the Wii in particular mention that they still might get one...So I ask why are you getting one? I also find it funny that people are complaining about the graphics when Nintendo warned everyone a long time ago that they were competing in the graphics race this gen.

I sometimes feel everyone should be stripped of all their games and only be allowed to play an Atari 2600 for a month. Then come back and complain about graphics. We have it good at this point.
 
I've seen that the Wii is really fun to play with friends, and that certainly kicks the crap out of playing a game with people sweating with your friends, who are sitting and staring at you and thinking, "How does this idiot think this is fun?"
 
Dear All-Encompassing Universal Diety,
Please, for the love of all things, make this fucking arguement stop. It's done. There's no need to revisit this idea over and over again ad infinium, ad fucking nauseum. Grant everyone the epiphany that "graphics vs gameplay" is a false choice created by marketers, and the concept of a"console war" died many, MANY years ago. Only then will the internet be at peace.
Thank you with many praises,
RF
P.S. If this is not possible, please strike everyone with blindness. It should have the same effect.




I mean, seriously, saying that either isn't significant is insane, and the way people address it is even moreso:
"Man, that looks like shit. Why you playin' it?"
"It's fun."
"Is that it? You only playin' that because it's fun." Like, why the fuck else would I be playing the game? It's a game, it's supposed to be fun. If you invented a game where I put my nuts on an ironing board and struck them repeatedly with a solid gold, jewel encrusted hammer, then guess what? It wouldn't be fun. If the hammer were dirty and rusty? It still wouldn't be fun. It doesn't matter how enamored I am with the way something looks; at the end of the day I'm whacking my balls with a hammer. That being said, yeah, graphics are important in that they absolutely MUST BE sufficient to get the point of the game across, and not hamper enjoyment. Early PS1? Certain N64 platformers? Jaggy, blurry shit ruins the fun. Super Mario World? Surprise, even with its caveman graf-x, it's still fun. HOW CAN THAT BE?!

Yes, Twilight Princess looks like a Gamecube game. But to be pissed about that is like saying Gamecube game visuals look like someone shit on a piece of notebook paper and drew stick figures. It's not the case. Are they weaker than what they could be, comparable to the 360 and PS3? Well, no shit.

The sad reality is that with either extreme, something is going to suffer, and that's where the gamer makes his choice. My viewpoint is this: If you play a game and say, "Man, that was fun, but-" then the rest of that statement doesn't even matter because the game did what it set out to do; entertain.
 
Good gameplay harder to find than good graphics.

New gameplay on the Wii is refreshing and fun.

IT's about the art. Games with graphics that lean towards the artistic and fantastical side have staying power. Games with realistic graphics grow outdated every few years.

Wii gets others on board as well as gamers.
 
GEARS OF WAR NUFF SAID. Anyways i would love to have both not just limited to one. But it doesn't seem to stop people from buying the ds and wii. Its all about gameplay and nothing else to some. But i am kinda in a wierd spot where i won't play a game if it looks like really bad. Look at the gt review on wii at ign
 
All the Wii fanboys always make it sound like you can only have good graphics or good gameplay, pick one. Obviously most people would pick gameplay in that case, but why the fuck can't you have both? This is the problem I believe I, the OP, and some others have.
 
I still play my NES and SNES regularly, and I don't have this magical disease so many people seem to have where I throw up at the visuals there.

Also, if you honestly think the graphics in Twilight Princess are bad, you are absolutely fuckING WRONG.
 
[quote name='Blind the Thief']Better graphics don't immerse me even more; if anything, I feel less immersed. All I did when I was playing Gears of War was stare at how shiney those men were...but it didn't make me feel like I was a part of it at all. No, I'm not nearly shiney enough.

Zelda, on the other hand, fully immersed me. While fighting random enemies out in the field by swinging my sword doesn't do too much for me, there have been a few boss fights where I was swinging intensely, or smugly landing the final blow, and it felt AWESOME. That's something no other system could have, and I'd gladly trade graphics for that feeling anyday.[/QUOTE]

Mmm.....shiny men....shiny, oily men...

My 2 cents...better graphics are always an improvement, and I'd rather not have to make a trade off between fun gameplay/control and graphics. Give me everything, no matter how shiny, oily, muscular, and sexy it is.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']I as well. The art (not graphics) is amazing. Look at the textures. someone painted all those little details in photoshop. It has a wonderfull sense of dzn that really gives me goose bumps.




I beat zelda 2 just a few weeks ago. man... good game. Why is it that link to the past is still a wonderfull game? the graphics are still beutfull becuse of the art. Good art is diffrent from good graphics. too many games have good graphics and not good art. Those will be the ones cast by the wayside, and the games with good art and gameplay will be immortal.[/QUOTE]

Nicely put... Viewtiful Joe comes to mind here..
 
[quote name='jkam']OMG its all about the graphics!!! If I play a PS1 game now my eyes start to bleed from the agony. Every single game that was not in HD should be burned and never spoken of again. The graphics are all that matters and that's why everyone owns a PSP. I bought a $2000 graphics card for my PC so I can play the newest game that looks amazing from the screenshots. I'm not sure if its any good but it looks amazing so who cares? I'll have to buy a new video card in 6 months but the graphics will be night and day by then. I bought Kameo just so I could pause the game and stare at the blades of grass.

Ok now truthfully its becoming more and more obvious to me that graphics are a pretty subjective thing at this point. I never realized how many gamers were complete videophiles. Personally there are still PS2 and Cube games that look pretty damn good to me. When I was a little kid playing games in the arcade I always thought graphics would turn out to look like Dragon's Lair rather than to emulate real life. When people point out muddy textures in Zelda I don't see how they could really enjoy any game. I do realize it might just mean more to certain people. I'm not one of them. I find it funny that the people who complain about the Wii in particular mention that they still might get one...So I ask why are you getting one? I also find it funny that people are complaining about the graphics when Nintendo warned everyone a long time ago that they were competing in the graphics race this gen.

I sometimes feel everyone should be stripped of all their games and only be allowed to play an Atari 2600 for a month. Then come back and complain about graphics. We have it good at this point.[/quote]

I own one.
 
I just don't understand why every one is saying the games for the Wii will be innovative and great. I have yet to see anything that's insanely innovative, and sure Zelda Twilight Princess is one of the best games of all time, but what games are coming in the near and distant future for the Wii? Super Mario Galaxy....? Metroid Prime 3 Corruption....? SSB?

These are the only 3 games I see wanting in the Wii's lifespan. Sure I like mini-games, but not for $50, and not on a home console. I have a DS to feel my mini-game desires. What will there be after these 3 games? We may see a new Zelda, but remember Miyamoto wants to change the game a whole hell of a lot, so we may end up getting some cheesy Zelda mini-game, or a Zelda that's aimed at mothers, because Miyamoto did want the Wii to be marketed at mothers.

I am just a little afraid because Nintendo decided to take the route of intuitive controls and more simplicity in gaming. What if we no longer get those epic Zelda games, because they want to design something that fits and takes full use of the controller. I think what Nintendo meant when they said "Zelda: Twilight Princess is the best Zelda ever" is that it's the last of it's kind, and they wanted to go out with a big bang.

I feel taking games to a more simple level, and ditching these epic, long journeyed stories for some mini-games is a huge trade off. I want real games for the money, not 50-5 second button mashers on a disc like in Rayman Raving Rabbids and Warioware. Games won't be the same on the Wii, and they will be very different. I think the disappointment will set in once Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3 Corruption, and SSB are done and over with.

Get ready to join the mini-game revolution, but atleast you have that new fangled controller to fill the emptiness.

(BTW I do own a Wii, and I am in no way at all making fun of it, or ditching it as a console. I just have concerns about the console, and was wondering if anyone else shares the same concerns.)
 
Honestly? I’d have to say compelling gameplay. Animal Crossing looked ass, but I probably lost more time to that title than to any other in my entire gaming history.
 
[quote name='Spades22']Agreed on the leap being not as huge. I mean NES to SNES was basically the same as N64 to Gamecube... it was a huge jump. Here they aren't doing much except making blades of grass visible...[/QUOTE]

BS...You guys are tripping if you don't think GRAW, or GOW are the best looking games ever...I know you're all hype about the WII...It's sweet...But I'd rather have both personally...5 years from now, when the PS3 and 360 are churning at their peak...The WII's graphics are going to be hard to live with as a sole system...You should get both...And as always with the Nintendo systems...There is going to be a lack of quantity as far as software goes...There will be those 3 must have games every year, with not a lot of quality in between...
 
[quote name='dserafin1986']BS...You guys are tripping if you don't think GRAW, or GOW are the best looking games ever...I know you're all hype about the WII...It's sweet...But I'd rather have both personally...5 years from now, when the PS3 and 360 are churning at their peak...The WII's graphics are going to be hard to live with as a sole system...You should get both...And as always with the Nintendo systems...There is going to be a lack of quantity as far as software goes...There will be those 3 must have games every year, with not a lot of quality in between...[/quote]No one's arguing that they aren't the best looking games. The issue is the jump from, say Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox to Gears of War on the 360 isn't as great as the jump from the PS1 to the Xbox, etc.

And an ellipsis is for showing a break in quoted material or when a sentence trails off without finishing. A single period will help divide your sentences just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top