OOG-ICANOwrote: Just because the two are related does not mean that graphics are part of gameplay mechanics. A pencil and paper do two completely different things, correct? Think of it in that sense.
Yes they are, cuz you have to be able to see what you're doing in order to decide what happens onscreen. For instance, in the game Splinter Cell, light and shadow both play a crucial role in espionage. Another example is that character animation can offer visual cues that give important information to the player on what to do in a given situation.
And I don't see how your analogy illustrates how gameplay and graphics are two separate things. Please explain how.
-----------
OOG-ICANOwrote: I think you took what I said wrong. The poster I was responding to was saying that graphics are an aspect of gameplay mechanics, which technically they are not. Yes, graphical issues can affect gameplay but they are not one in the same. If you feel like arguing semantics then go right ahead.
How are they not one and the same? If I was playing a racing game and pop-in issues were rampant, then that would make it virtually unplayable cuz having to steer clear of walls that appear suddenly would be frustratingly difficult.
OOG-ICANOwrote: Uhmmm, duh? Thanks for the lesson in common sense. Seriously why did you even bother posting that?
I only said what I said because I see it as a two way street, hun. If you want to use one side of an argument, then you would also have to include the other side so as to make it seem fair.
OOG-ICANOwrote: Except I wasn't being selective. All I said was that better graphics don't ALWAYS (read: not all the time/not in every case/etc.) mean a better game. And using ONE example is is being selective? I chose the first example that came to mind.
Actually yes you were being selective because you chose one game that conveniently supports your point while failing to mention other games that contradict it. Sure you can choose Doom 3 by means of supporting your argument, but I can also choose something like, say, Valkyria Chronicles (which looks and plays beautifully) as a way to nullify your point.
OOG-ICANOwrote: Fair enough, though honestly I figured that people on this site would know about things like that, but apparently the definition of gameplay isn't so cut and dry. Well, gameplay mechanics consist of, in short, how things get done in game, and not how it looks while you're doing it. Controls, battle/targeting systems, glitches that are not graphics related (such as a scripting bug) etc., stuff like that is the easiest way of putting it I suppose.
And yet, you still need a visual in order to determine how it plays out onscreen.
OOG-ICANOwrote: Please point out when I said it was. I also said that was my personal opinion.
Um well yeah, but an opinion can stil be debated y'know?
OOG-ICANOwrote: Oh, and thank you for pointing out something for me when you said that just because something is popular doesn't make it better. Well, I could say the very same thing about a current gen system now couldn't I? But I'm pretty sure that games like Zelda 3 and Chrono Trigger aren't "fad" or "bandwagon" games. Now on the other hand, the newest "OH MOMMY I GOTTA HAVE IT!" games could be described as such. "OH IT HAS COOL GRAPHICS AND I PLAYED IT AT MY FRIENDS HOUSE AND IT WAS AWESOOOOOME"
Who said they were?
And how exactly are these "newest" games ****fied as "fad" or "bandwagon" games? Couldn't the same logic be just as applicable to the very games you favor?
OOG-ICANOwrote: Again, not to me. You really don't understand the concept of opinions well, do you?
Actually I do. Just because its your opinion doesn't mean it cannot be debated or contended.
OOG-ICANOwrote: Point taken, but it's not like I'm the only one who thinks that way. Back when video games were still a small market, develops had to be careful on what they released, as a single bad game could be the end of that developer, so naturally the games, by and large, have more to them, at the time period at least. Nowadays it's not like that, and people will release just about anything it seems. Could you say with a straight face that babysitting sims, the dozens of Petz/Bratz/whateverz games are of high quality?
Depends on what system you're referring to. If it's the Wii, then yeah, it would seem to be the case that developers will release just about anything as long as it will sell. But in the case of the PS3/X360, not really.
And you do realize the developers in this current day and age have been far more cautious about what gets released and what doesn't, right? Especially given with how development costs are constantly on the rise and such.
Shovelware has always been around since the days of Atari. You must have not remembered the heaps of trash that were present in the NES/SNES library.
OOG-ICANOwrote: Sure, there's some great new games out there and I have never argued that point (even though you seem to think that I have), I'm just saying that your average game doesn't have as much....heart, so to speak as when I was a bit younger and played games more.
LOL how would you know when you just admitted that you didn't own an HD gaming system?
OOG-ICANOwrote: Oh, and please do not say "so ardently favor" when you really have no idea what you mean. You're acting as if I said "old=good & new=bad" which I clearly (well, maybe not to you) did not.
So why diminish the importance of graphical advancement and ridicule the current gen if that is not what you mean?Why claim that newer games seem to be a ripoff of the older titles? Also, you just said that you would prefer a NES/SNES title over a PS3 game so are you telling me that you're lying?
You don't seem to be paying attention to what you're saying if that's the case.
OOG-ICANOwrote: Nice twisting of words, you should be a corporate lawyer with gems like that. :)
Seriously though, if someone ripped off your game you wouldn't see a problem with that. Or, let's be more realistic here; say you had to write a thesis on Ancient Rome. Now, you put hours into it and came up with a brilliant 50 page thesis on it. So now say your roommate sees it, copies it nearly word for word, only to add a few pages worth of new material? Is that "enhancing"?
Your analogy makes no sense. What you're referring to is called plagiarism. Unlike writing a thesis, borrowing a gameplay mechanic wouldn't constitute as copyright infringement.
But yes, "ripping off" from an older title would be in fact enhancing, since its pretty much a given that most developers do learn from other people's mistakes and see what works and what doesn't. For instance, Tomb Raider Anniversary Edition is in every respect a much better game than the original because it looks and plays better.
Log in to comment