Graphics are the Ultimate Gimmick

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"][QUOTE="Link3301"]

gim·mick

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

2.a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal: An offer that good musthave a gimmick in it somewhere.3.a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game ofchance.4.Electronics Informal. a capacitor formed by intertwining two insulated wires.verb (used with object)5.to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, especially in order to increase salability, acceptance,etc. (often followed by up  ): to gimmick up a sports car with chrome and racing stripes.

Link3301

I'm talking about current advancements in graphics that have done nothing to enhance gameplay. New graphics tech is the ultimate gimmick.

you know what.

You guys are right.

Graphics are important.

That's why games like Call of Duty and Minecraft are some of the most popular games out there.

oh wait a minute

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:|  No it has more to do with devs spending more time with graphics.. That people like you eat this Sh!t up in which they are literally releasing games with shiny graphics taht were either the same of last game in mechanics or have actually taken two steps back.. These devs are taking the easiest of routes, by jacking up visuals with minimal gameplay enhancements.. And it seems to be working for the "core" gamer as well seeing as we can't seem to stop seeing these endless gushing of how great a game looks on visuals.. Only to never see it talked down the road because it only last 10 hours with minimal replay value.. 

Lucianu

Developers are expected to take advantage of the superior hardware at each start of a generation, in some way.

No they aren't.

It adds a bonus to owning a console from a new generation because better graphical fidelity is the easiest form of differentiation for most gamers,

Yet the most popular games out there on pretty much any platform are usually never the best looking.

 you can't expect console gamers or casual gamers to conduct heavy research concerning the hardware. Most people just see the better graphics, and go for it. 

I find this pretty amusing when I see the biggest graphic arguments with the "core" gamers and PC gamers rather than the casuals.. In fact wasn't the Wii accused of being a "casual" console?

Better graphics are part of a natural progression with games. With better graphics tech, you get smoother framerates, higher resolutions, better animations, better physics and lighting, etc. And that's not even including non-graphical things that better technology also allows for, like more enemies on screen, larger areas, more complex actions, etc.

You can't call something that's integral to the experience a gimmick. 

Seriously what useful innovation is graphics even getting us right now. Everything gameplay wise that can be done on 8th gen consoles can be done on 7th gen consoles and current PCs. the new tech powering new consoles and current and upcoming PCs does not improve developers abilities to design great games and innovate. Graphics are an even bigger gimmick right now than the Wii U gamepad, Wiimotes, Kinect, and every other motion controller. At least motion controllers open up new gameplay and design options. Same could be said for touch controls, they actual open up new opportunities for designers. Graphics aren't doing anything right now. We don't need new tech just to get developers to do something besides generic bro shooter bro warfare 37. Just look at the Indie market. Most of those games don't even use current console and PC tech to its fullest and are way more innovative than most AAA titles.

In terms of graphics the better the hardware is the better the AI, physics and etc will be in a game. You can make better looking games have bigger enivronments with better graphics, but sadly most devs rather focus on making games look better instead of improving A.I, physics and etc.

Seriously what useful innovation is graphics even getting us right now. Everything gameplay wise that can be done on 8th gen consoles can be done on 7th gen consoles and current PCs. the new tech powering new consoles and current and upcoming PCs does not improve developers abilities to design great games and innovate. Graphics are an even bigger gimmick right now than the Wii U gamepad, Wiimotes, Kinect, and every other motion controller. At least motion controllers open up new gameplay and design options. Same could be said for touch controls, they actual open up new opportunities for designers. Graphics aren't doing anything right now. We don't need new tech just to get developers to do something besides generic bro shooter bro warfare 37. Just look at the Indie market. Most of those games don't even use current console and PC tech to its fullest and are way more innovative than most AAA titles.

Link3301

That's right, let's just keep playing NES games and Atari!

Seriously though gameplay almost always trumps graphics, but they are hardly gimmicks (unless the consolites think they have a graphics kinds and then all of sudden nothing matters but graphics).

In terms of graphics the better the hardware is the better the AI, physics and etc will be in a game. You can make better looking games have bigger enivronments with better graphics, but sadly most devs rather focus on making games look better instead of improving A.I, physics and etc.

super600

We've had very good AI for enemies and allies, physics technology, and graphics technology for years that most developers still don't even use.

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

Seriously what useful innovation is graphics even getting us right now. Everything gameplay wise that can be done on 8th gen consoles can be done on 7th gen consoles and current PCs. the new tech powering new consoles and current and upcoming PCs does not improve developers abilities to design great games and innovate. Graphics are an even bigger gimmick right now than the Wii U gamepad, Wiimotes, Kinect, and every other motion controller. At least motion controllers open up new gameplay and design options. Same could be said for touch controls, they actual open up new opportunities for designers. Graphics aren't doing anything right now. We don't need new tech just to get developers to do something besides generic bro shooter bro warfare 37. Just look at the Indie market. Most of those games don't even use current console and PC tech to its fullest and are way more innovative than most AAA titles.

menes777

That's right, let's just keep playing NES games and Atari!

Seriously though gameplay almost always trumps graphics, but they are hardly gimmicks (unless the consolites think they have a graphics kinds and then all of sudden nothing matters but graphics).

Nah, NES and Atari games would actually be hampered by their graphical capablilities. Im talking more 7th gen vs 8th gen, where tech hasn't even been fully used for years.

hating on graphics? Must be a sheep.campzor

Not hating just showing the hypocrisy of Lems, Herms, and Cows bragging about their graphic tech and then calling the Motion controls, Touch Controls, and the Wii U a gimmick.

I don't think you know what the word gimmick means.bobbetybob

gim·mick

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

Increases immersion. Stories can be realistically told.RR360DD

The original Half-Life isa very immersive game, its a 5th/6th gen game released on PC in 1998 and on PS2 in 2002.

Seriously what useful innovation is graphics even getting us right now. Everything gameplay wise that can be done on 8th gen consoles can be done on 7th gen consoles and current PCs. the new tech powering new consoles and current and upcoming PCs does not improve developers abilities to design great games and innovate. Graphics are an even bigger gimmick right now than the Wii U gamepad, Wiimotes, Kinect, and every other motion controller. At least motion controllers open up new gameplay and design options. Same could be said for touch controls, they actual open up new opportunities for designers. Graphics aren't doing anything right now. We don't need new tech just to get developers to do something besides generic bro shooter bro warfare 37. Just look at the Indie market. Most of those games don't even use current console and PC tech to its fullest and are way more innovative than most AAA titles.

Link3301

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"]I don't think you know what the word gimmick means.Link3301

gim·mick

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"]I don't think you know what the word gimmick means.bobbetybob

gim·mick

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

2.a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal: An offer that good musthave a gimmick in it somewhere.3.a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game ofchance.4.Electronics Informal. a capacitor formed by intertwining two insulated wires.verb (used with object)5.to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, especially in order to increase salability, acceptance,etc. (often followed by up  ): to gimmick up a sports car with chrome and racing stripes.

I'm talking about current advancements in graphics that have done nothing to enhance gameplay. New graphics tech is the ultimate gimmick.

VG have almost always been about improving visuals and in almost all cases, is the main reason gamers are hyped for a next gen system though these days, the improvement in visuals is less & less but that's no different than speed freaks knowing that to go from 150 mph to 300 mph needs way, way more than twice the power to achieve. ;)

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]Increases immersion. Stories can be realistically told.Link3301

The original Half-Life isa very immersive game, its a 5th/6th gen game released on PC in 1998 and on PS2 in 2002.

Half Life 2 was even more immersive, and I'm sure Half Life 3 (if it ever exists) will outdo both. Graphics matter, they aren't a gimmick.

Motion controls on the other hand didn't do anything to improve controls, Nintendo even turned their back on them by going back to traditional analogues with the Wii U.

Seriously what useful innovation is graphics even getting us right now. Everything gameplay wise that can be done on 8th gen consoles can be done on 7th gen consoles and current PCs. the new tech powering new consoles and current and upcoming PCs does not improve developers abilities to design great games and innovate. Graphics are an even bigger gimmick right now than the Wii U gamepad, Wiimotes, Kinect, and every other motion controller. At least motion controllers open up new gameplay and design options. Same could be said for touch controls, they actual open up new opportunities for designers. Graphics aren't doing anything right now. We don't need new tech just to get developers to do something besides generic bro shooter bro warfare 37. Just look at the Indie market. Most of those games don't even use current console and PC tech to its fullest and are way more innovative than most AAA titles.

Link3301

go back to PONG 

I agree. I prefer story and gameplay over graphics, although it's nice to play something "pretty."

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]Increases immersion. Stories can be realistically told.RR360DD

The original Half-Life isa very immersive game, its a 5th/6th gen game released on PC in 1998 and on PS2 in 2002.

Half Life 2 was even more immersive, and I'm sure Half Life 3 (if it ever exists) will outdo both. Graphics matter, they aren't a gimmick.

Motion controls on the other hand didn't do anything to improve controls, Nintendo even turned their back on them by going back to traditional analogues with the Wii U.

But once again Half-Life 2 uses nothing near current tech. We don't need new tech to innovate.

I agree. I prefer story and gameplay over graphics, although it's nice to play something "pretty."

lowkey254

Yes, I agree, but we don't need the new graphics tech for developers to innovate. 

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]Increases immersion. Stories can be realistically told.RR360DD

The original Half-Life isa very immersive game, its a 5th/6th gen game released on PC in 1998 and on PS2 in 2002.

Half Life 2 was even more immersive, and I'm sure Half Life 3 (if it ever exists) will outdo both. Graphics matter, they aren't a gimmick.

Motion controls on the other hand didn't do anything to improve controls, Nintendo even turned their back on them by going back to traditional analogues with the Wii U.

 Yet Half-Life 1 is the better game, with tighter controls and better gun play.. The gun play in HL2 was extremely weak.. In the end of the day THEY ARE A gimmick if they do absolutely nothing for the actual game mechanics.. Hence why we are seeing dumbing down of games out there.. You can keep your "movie" games, if I want a great story and presentation I will read a book or go to a theater.. This isn't saying that games shouldn't have that, but it is devolving to this sh!t EVERY MAJOR game now.. Look at Killzone 4, it's the SAME SH!T military shooter we have been seeing for 7 years now.. Yet people were blown away by it, because they are gullible idiots who think that the game is some how "new" when it really isn't..  And please tell that to the people out there who play games like minecraft, FTL, or Terraria.. Games that could be done a decade ago, yet are becoming MORE popular than the so called "blockbuster" games of today.

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"] Exactly, so how are graphics novel and unnecessary in any way, they're the building block of a game. Gimmicks are pointless things that add little to a product. Also graphics DO add to a game, better graphics = better immersion and immersing yourself in a game can make a game so much better, or are you seriously going to try and argue that Bioshock or Uncharted would have been anywhere near as good if they'd had Doom graphics.Heirren

I'm talking about current advancements in graphics that have done nothing to enhance gameplay. New graphics tech is the ultimate gimmick.

The point I'm making ins't that graphics are bad, it's just that people who praise their consoles and PCs for having superior graphics and then calling new control methods and stuff "gimmicks" are pretty much hypocrites. I like good graphics, they fascinate me and I like seeing how realistic enviroments have been getting with new graphics tech, but we don't need this tech to make new and exciting games necessarily.

[QUOTE="lowkey254"]

I agree. I prefer story and gameplay over graphics, although it's nice to play something "pretty."

Link3301

Yes, I agree, but we don't need the new graphics tech for developers to innovate. 

  Maybe if we actually saw some innovation to gameplay due to graphics I would agree.. But the majority of the improvements are meaningless as a whole in actually altering gameplay and adding new options.

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

The original Half-Life isa very immersive game, its a 5th/6th gen game released on PC in 1998 and on PS2 in 2002.

sSubZerOo

Half Life 2 was even more immersive, and I'm sure Half Life 3 (if it ever exists) will outdo both. Graphics matter, they aren't a gimmick.

Motion controls on the other hand didn't do anything to improve controls, Nintendo even turned their back on them by going back to traditional analogues with the Wii U.

 Yet Half-Life 1 is the better game, with tighter controls and better gun play.. The gun play in HL2 was extremely weak.. In the end of the day THEY ARE A gimmick if they do absolutely nothing for the actual game mechanics.. Hence why we are seeing dumbing down of games out there.. You can keep your "movie" games, if I want a great story and presentation I will read a book or go to a theater.. This isn't saying that games shouldn't have that, but it is devolving to this sh!t EVERY MAJOR game now.. Look at Killzone 4, it's the SAME SH!T military shooter we have been seeing for 7 years now.. Yet people were blown away by it, because they are gullible idiots who think that the game is some how "new" when it really isn't..  And please tell that to the people out there who play games like minecraft, FTL, or Terraria.. Games that could be done a decade ago, yet are becoming MORE popular than the so called "blockbuster" games of today.

Exactly my point.

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

The original Half-Life isa very immersive game, its a 5th/6th gen game released on PC in 1998 and on PS2 in 2002.

Link3301

Half Life 2 was even more immersive, and I'm sure Half Life 3 (if it ever exists) will outdo both. Graphics matter, they aren't a gimmick.

Motion controls on the other hand didn't do anything to improve controls, Nintendo even turned their back on them by going back to traditional analogues with the Wii U.

But once again Half-Life 2 uses nothing near current tech. We don't need new tech to innovate.

My point was that more advanced tech allowed the second one to improve in atmosphere, immersion, story telling etc. No way could they have created a character like Alyx to the same effect with 1998 graphics.

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

Seriously what useful innovation is graphics even getting us right now. Everything gameplay wise that can be done on 8th gen consoles can be done on 7th gen consoles and current PCs. the new tech powering new consoles and current and upcoming PCs does not improve developers abilities to design great games and innovate. Graphics are an even bigger gimmick right now than the Wii U gamepad, Wiimotes, Kinect, and every other motion controller. At least motion controllers open up new gameplay and design options. Same could be said for touch controls, they actual open up new opportunities for designers. Graphics aren't doing anything right now. We don't need new tech just to get developers to do something besides generic bro shooter bro warfare 37. Just look at the Indie market. Most of those games don't even use current console and PC tech to its fullest and are way more innovative than most AAA titles.

clone01

No, I'm jsut saying modern graphical advancements are gimmicky.

Seriously what useful innovation is graphics even getting us right now. Everything gameplay wise that can be done on 8th gen consoles can be done on 7th gen consoles and current PCs. the new tech powering new consoles and current and upcoming PCs does not improve developers abilities to design great games and innovate. Graphics are an even bigger gimmick right now than the Wii U gamepad, Wiimotes, Kinect, and every other motion controller. At least motion controllers open up new gameplay and design options. Same could be said for touch controls, they actual open up new opportunities for designers. Graphics aren't doing anything right now. We don't need new tech just to get developers to do something besides generic bro shooter bro warfare 37. Just look at the Indie market. Most of those games don't even use current console and PC tech to its fullest and are way more innovative than most AAA titles.

Link3301

Developers aren't using the full possibilities. They improve texture quality, lighting, models etc but could be doing wonderful things with physics, AI, and size of the gameworld instead. This does relate to grahics because both are tied to hardware power.

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

Half Life 2 was even more immersive, and I'm sure Half Life 3 (if it ever exists) will outdo both. Graphics matter, they aren't a gimmick.

Motion controls on the other hand didn't do anything to improve controls, Nintendo even turned their back on them by going back to traditional analogues with the Wii U.

RR360DD

But once again Half-Life 2 uses nothing near current tech. We don't need new tech to innovate.

My point was that more advanced tech allowed the second one to improve in atmosphere, immersion, story telling etc. No way could they have created a character like Alyx to the same effect with 1998 graphics.

  Yet game stories are in fact getting WORSE in many areas... Especially when it comes to RPG's, with less options for the user.

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="Link3301"]

Seriously what useful innovation is graphics even getting us right now. Everything gameplay wise that can be done on 8th gen consoles can be done on 7th gen consoles and current PCs. the new tech powering new consoles and current and upcoming PCs does not improve developers abilities to design great games and innovate. Graphics are an even bigger gimmick right now than the Wii U gamepad, Wiimotes, Kinect, and every other motion controller. At least motion controllers open up new gameplay and design options. Same could be said for touch controls, they actual open up new opportunities for designers. Graphics aren't doing anything right now. We don't need new tech just to get developers to do something besides generic bro shooter bro warfare 37. Just look at the Indie market. Most of those games don't even use current console and PC tech to its fullest and are way more innovative than most AAA titles.

Link3301

No, I'm jsut saying modern graphical advancements are gimmicky.

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

The original Half-Life isa very immersive game, its a 5th/6th gen game released on PC in 1998 and on PS2 in 2002.

sSubZerOo

Half Life 2 was even more immersive, and I'm sure Half Life 3 (if it ever exists) will outdo both. Graphics matter, they aren't a gimmick.

Motion controls on the other hand didn't do anything to improve controls, Nintendo even turned their back on them by going back to traditional analogues with the Wii U.

 Yet Half-Life 1 is the better game, with tighter controls and better gun play.. The gun play in HL2 was extremely weak.. In the end of the day THEY ARE A gimmick if they do absolutely nothing for the actual game mechanics.. Hence why we are seeing dumbing down of games out there.. You can keep your "movie" games, if I want a great story and presentation I will read a book or go to a theater.. This isn't saying that games shouldn't have that, but it is devolving to this sh!t EVERY MAJOR game now.. Look at Killzone 4, it's the SAME SH!T military shooter we have been seeing for 7 years now.. Yet people were blown away by it, because they are gullible idiots who think that the game is some how "new" when it really isn't..  And please tell that to the people out there who play games like minecraft, FTL, or Terraria.. Games that could be done a decade ago, yet are becoming MORE popular than the so called "blockbuster" games of today.

Which HAS NOTHING TO DO with graphics.

Killzone 4 is the same shit, but thats more down to Guerillas lack of creativity. Of course some devs will just make something pretty and run with it, but not all do it. Look at Bioshock Infinite, Columbia would not have had the same effect if it was built for crappy hardware.

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

Half Life 2 was even more immersive, and I'm sure Half Life 3 (if it ever exists) will outdo both. Graphics matter, they aren't a gimmick.

Motion controls on the other hand didn't do anything to improve controls, Nintendo even turned their back on them by going back to traditional analogues with the Wii U.

RR360DD

But once again Half-Life 2 uses nothing near current tech. We don't need new tech to innovate.

My point was that more advanced tech allowed the second one to improve in atmosphere, immersion, story telling etc. No way could they have created a character like Alyx to the same effect with 1998 graphics.

What made Alyx great was more what was on paper than current tech. Also, Half-Life 2 was no more immersive than Half-Life 1. 

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

Half Life 2 was even more immersive, and I'm sure Half Life 3 (if it ever exists) will outdo both. Graphics matter, they aren't a gimmick.

Motion controls on the other hand didn't do anything to improve controls, Nintendo even turned their back on them by going back to traditional analogues with the Wii U.

RR360DD

 Yet Half-Life 1 is the better game, with tighter controls and better gun play.. The gun play in HL2 was extremely weak.. In the end of the day THEY ARE A gimmick if they do absolutely nothing for the actual game mechanics.. Hence why we are seeing dumbing down of games out there.. You can keep your "movie" games, if I want a great story and presentation I will read a book or go to a theater.. This isn't saying that games shouldn't have that, but it is devolving to this sh!t EVERY MAJOR game now.. Look at Killzone 4, it's the SAME SH!T military shooter we have been seeing for 7 years now.. Yet people were blown away by it, because they are gullible idiots who think that the game is some how "new" when it really isn't..  And please tell that to the people out there who play games like minecraft, FTL, or Terraria.. Games that could be done a decade ago, yet are becoming MORE popular than the so called "blockbuster" games of today.

Which HAS NOTHING TO DO with graphics.

Killzone 4 is the same shit, but thats more down to Guerillas lack of creativity. Of course some devs will just make something pretty and run with it, but not all do it. Look at Bioshock Infinite, Columbia would not have had the same effect if it was built for crappy hardware.

Bioshock Infinite would have been just as good on 6th gen hardware.

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

[QUOTE="clone01"] So do you only play text adventures?clone01

No, I'm jsut saying modern graphical advancements are gimmicky.

No they are gimmicky if they do not enhance gameplay, which they don't.

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

But once again Half-Life 2 uses nothing near current tech. We don't need new tech to innovate.

sSubZerOo

My point was that more advanced tech allowed the second one to improve in atmosphere, immersion, story telling etc. No way could they have created a character like Alyx to the same effect with 1998 graphics.

  Yet game stories are in fact getting WORSE in many areas... Especially when it comes to RPG's, with less options for the user.

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

 Yet Half-Life 1 is the better game, with tighter controls and better gun play.. The gun play in HL2 was extremely weak.. In the end of the day THEY ARE A gimmick if they do absolutely nothing for the actual game mechanics.. Hence why we are seeing dumbing down of games out there.. You can keep your "movie" games, if I want a great story and presentation I will read a book or go to a theater.. This isn't saying that games shouldn't have that, but it is devolving to this sh!t EVERY MAJOR game now.. Look at Killzone 4, it's the SAME SH!T military shooter we have been seeing for 7 years now.. Yet people were blown away by it, because they are gullible idiots who think that the game is some how "new" when it really isn't..  And please tell that to the people out there who play games like minecraft, FTL, or Terraria.. Games that could be done a decade ago, yet are becoming MORE popular than the so called "blockbuster" games of today.

Link3301

Which HAS NOTHING TO DO with graphics.

Killzone 4 is the same shit, but thats more down to Guerillas lack of creativity. Of course some devs will just make something pretty and run with it, but not all do it. Look at Bioshock Infinite, Columbia would not have had the same effect if it was built for crappy hardware.

Bioshock Infinite would have been just as good on 6th gen hardware.

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="Link3301"]

No, I'm jsut saying modern graphical advancements are gimmicky.

Link3301

No they are gimmicky if they do not enhance gameplay, which they don't.

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

Which HAS NOTHING TO DO with graphics.

Killzone 4 is the same shit, but thats more down to Guerillas lack of creativity. Of course some devs will just make something pretty and run with it, but not all do it. Look at Bioshock Infinite, Columbia would not have had the same effect if it was built for crappy hardware.

RR360DD

Bioshock Infinite would have been just as good on 6th gen hardware.

k

[QUOTE="Link3301"]

[QUOTE="clone01"] They're only gimmicky if graphics are used as a substitution for gameplay.clone01

No they are gimmicky if they do not enhance gameplay, which they don't.

Guess Game B, but graphics don't enchance gameplay in this case, so it's still a gimmick.

Ultimate gimmicks are motion controls and poor hardware.

Without graphics, we'd all be playing Tetris and Pong.

At the end of the day, your looking at the screen, and visuals matter for a better gaming experience and immersion.

If your talking about shooters and such like FPS games, they have improved visually and technically which is not a bad thing.
They're not exactly constant cartoon graphics.

I don't know why people say "Oh you must like playing Text Adventure Games!" or "Good to know you're still playing in 8-bits!" when this arguement comes up.

It's a pretty good arguement.

Just look at the WiiU and PS3 what was the one thing everyone cared about on this board?

The Specs.

Why?

So they could know what the Graphics would look like.

System Wars Sees this.

"AMAZING GAME MUST HAVE"

Sees this.

"GARBAGE! REHASH! TERRIBLE!"

Sees this

"CRISIS AM CRY! THANK YOU SONY!"

and it's pretty much like that for everything on the PS4. Lets just look at the graphics guys.

Let's just not forget just about half of what was announced at the PS4 showed little to no gameplay and Killzone 4 has awful fire animations.

No way. Graphics and performance do wonders for in game immersion. Some games can still pull off having a great atmosphere such as Amnesia, but better graphics would only further benefit it.

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="Link3301"]

No they are gimmicky if they do not enhance gameplay, which they don't.

Link3301

Guess Game B, but graphics don't enchance gameplay in this case, so it's still a gimmick.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

My point was that more advanced tech allowed the second one to improve in atmosphere, immersion, story telling etc. No way could they have created a character like Alyx to the same effect with 1998 graphics.

RR360DD

  Yet game stories are in fact getting WORSE in many areas... Especially when it comes to RPG's, with less options for the user.

:|  No it has more to do with devs spending more time with graphics.. That people like you eat this Sh!t up in which they are literally releasing games with shiny graphics taht were either the same of last game in mechanics or have actually taken two steps back.. These devs are taking the easiest of routes, by jacking up visuals with minimal gameplay enhancements.. And it seems to be working for the "core" gamer as well seeing as we can't seem to stop seeing these endless gushing of how great a game looks on visuals.. Only to never see it talked down the road because it only last 10 hours with minimal replay value.. 

It doesn't surprise me that console peasants want to discredit something because it is the weak point of their gaming experience. Their systems are ancient machines that are becoming more useless every day so suddenly graphics aren't important anymore. Except when they are talking about the Wii that is.

 Advacements in graphics have always ben relevant, and important since the birth of gaming. Better graphics always benefit a game, there are in no shape or form a gimmick. 

Now.. tacked on motion controls (ex. in games like DK Country Returns) or Kinect's voice recognition in some games, now those are what i would call a gimmick.