Don’t look at me, I didn’t claim Nintendo’s holding back the future of gaming.
Graphics are nice, but gameplay trumps it every time.
I dunno. We’re reaching the point of the thread where Nintendo’s capable defenders start going overboard and making strawmen arguments and start undermining their point, just because one person made a ridiculous statement. I happen to get a lot of enjoyment out of BOTH excellent gameplay *and *graphics/audio. The current argument is starting to sound more like “you can have one or the other, but you can’t have both”.
I just plugged Uncharted 2 in for the first time this weekend, and I have to STRONGLY disagree with that.
How many Nintendo fans have made ridiculous statements, exactly? Seems like an easy way to dismiss everyone who disagrees in one fell swoop. And certainly none were on par with “Nintendo regressed the industry by 10 years.”
No one argued that. Many are arguing you don’t need HD to have a beautiful looking game. I love Mario Galaxy, and I also love how it looks. Neither are an exclusive function of HD.
It’s not that cool graphics aren’t cool, it’s that - to me - they tend not to be worth it. They cost more (from $10 to $55 more) and they run on more expensive machines. They also in my experience tend to trade that cutting-edge look for fun a lot of times.
Now Halo 1, there’s a counter-example of a game that had state of the art graphics and excellent gameplay. It was an exception, though. Not the rule.
Raise the standards of gameplay, replay value, and fun factor, and then maybe I’ll run out of other things to worry about and start bitching about graphics. Until then, I’m not interested.
No, it’s more like “If I had to pick one or the other.” A developer can’t always focus on all areas of a game due to budget or time constraints.
I haven’t claimed any have.
Sure they have. Bosstone’s “If the future of gaming is pure graphics…” and Cisco’s dismissive Get Smart analogy steer the direction of the thread right into those rocks.
Again, 'twas not me who originally used that phrase to describe the lack of HD graphics.
And I’m not the one who brought up black and white.
The rule isn’t “shitty gameplay for good graphics” in video games this generation. It’s “shitty gameplay”, period. But that’s merely a function of quantity of titles than anything else.
For Nintendo, that choice has already been made. Yes - a lot of games still look really good. But HD frankly wouldn’t be that much of a stretch or burden (if any), as we’ve already seen with the Dolphin emulator. There’s no “can’t always”, there’s simply “can’t”, while there are plenty of titles on the other consoles that DO.
Huh? If your Get Smart analogy was a refutation of the bogus B&W:color::SD:HD argument, you failed. (Get Smart was in color.)
Mm, are you playing Nintendo, by chance? I’m happier with this generation than I have been with any since SNES, but I only have Wii.
Hmph, well I had forgotten that (or maybe I was just remembering watching it on our b&w tv as a kid), but the concept still applies. Substitute Dobie Gillis, for god’s sake. Do I have to do all your thinking for you?
That’s not what they argued. Saying "if the future of gaming is about pure graphics is not the same as “Good games can’t have good graphics.” He was arguing a hypothetical based on some of the opinions expressed in this thread, which some have implied that HD visuals are required for games to be worth while.
I’m not Cisco, but it’s clear to me his argument had nothing to do with being black and white. Image quality has advanced a lot since then, in multiple ways, which is closer to the HD argument than B&W is.
I’ve already stated that I am. I don’t think anyone who’s walked down the Wii aisle in any big box store would disagree with me - but if you would like to, be my guest. My argument is against the miles of shovelware. If you don’t think there’s a shit-ton of crap out there in gaming, more power to you, I guess.
And that’s what I’m saying as well. There was one set of ridiculous arguments - Palooka’s. To make your point against ridiculous arguments isn’t to make other ridiculous arguments.
Well, Cisco’s weighed in on it, and I guess he’s sticking with the B&W argument for some reason. Either way, it’s arguing against a strawman.
Sorry I don’t know your life story. Yeah, there is a ton of shovelware on the Wii. I won’t argue with that. There are a ton of all-time greats, too, that don’t necessarily look any better.
My point was a counter to this attitude, which specifically equates b&w–>color to SD–>HD:
-Post #29
So what exactly are you calling a strawman?
-Post #52.
Correct. Those are what we’ve established as the “exceptions to the rule”.
No one* has yet to argue that gameplay isn’t what matters most, OR even that HD video is critical to enjoying a game.
*The exception is Palooka, who I (and others) have mentioned several times to have made ridiculous claims. Those claims are being met with further ridiculous claims by the Nintendo defenders, which really hurts their cause.
I don’t think I’ve said anything ridiculous, but I probably need to explain them fully. It’s a waste when I’m being misread every post, but you’re reasonable enough to warrant it.
No, he said “culture,” not “industry.”
The words are interchangeable for my point. The culture was dead as well, hence my use of only “gaming” in the final sentence.
I think the “Nintendo has set the industry back 10 years” is pretty ridiculous. I really like the Wii, but think the Wii motion controls are pretty gimmicky. However, motion controls themselves are a huge advancement that just haven’t been refined yet. Microsoft seems to be doing really good things with the Kinect, and are working on integrating it into things beyond the console. Nintendo also continues to reinvent the handheld industry every several years.