Graphics are the Ultimate Gimmick

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.

PublicNuisance

  Yet I am a PC gamer.

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.

g0ddyX

I am talking more in the last decaded, not like 30 years ago.

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.

PublicNuisance

Pretty much this, consoles can't do as good of graphics, so they sluff them off as gimmicks. 

The argument that great graphics won't save crappy gameplay or that great gameplay is universal despite the graphics it would be more believable.

Graphics are only important once every other element of a game is polished.

:|  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.. 

sSubZerOo

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

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

[QUOTE="g0ddyX"]

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.

Link3301

I am talking more in the last decaded, not like 30 years ago.

So you're ignoring the history of gaming just to suit your argument. And by the way, Tetris and Pong would not function without graphical input, they are for all intent and purposes, games with better graphics than text based games.  

Graphics are beneficial to games, gimmicks either add nothing or make them worse.

Eight years we are rocking the same graphics, eight years is longer than ever before .

Can I have my updated graphics, physics and A.I  now ?

Remember the Wii that launched at the same time, no fancy graphics but all about new controls, does anybody know where it went because there's is your gimmick , and oh look at the Wii-U failing from the get go .

B.T.W. this whole thread reeks of Butthurt Sheep putting money on the wrong Horse again .

No they aren't.

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

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?

sSubZerOo

Yet history itself proves it. It may not be a life or death situation, but with each generation developers took advantage of the extra 'oomph' in power. Literally, each jump in generation equalled better graphics, from the ATARI 2600 to the NES, to the SEGA Genesis/SNES to the jump to 3D, etc. 

And on the other flip side of the coin, you'll have an equal number, or maybe more immensly popular games that took advantage of the hardware to provide a graphical output beyond what could be possible on the 6th generation(GTA IV, RDR, Halo series, God of War 3, etc.). Right now, we're at a bottleneck. And that bottleneck will cease to exist once the PS4/Nextbox starts rolling in. 

Well, i was talking outside the internet and gaming forums.  

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

Link3301

I'm pretty sure stealth games rely on graphics to enhance the gameplay.

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

LegatoSkyheart

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

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

MFDOOM1983

Yeah, COD may have shit textures, but the levels still have tons of detail and retain 60fps with no screen tearing. I would take that on consoles rather than the console version of BF3 that is 30fps and awful screentearing.

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

Better graphics lead to better immersion and better atmosphere. 

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

LegatoSkyheart

Call of Duty actually has some decent visuals at times, at least BLOPS II on PC did. Minecraft is supposed to look like that and if it actually had different visuals I don't know if it would be AS popular, because those crude retro visuals is what you see first and entices people. They're good graphics in their own right.

Also graphics includes physics and animations too along with art style, it's not just how real it looks. Educate yourself a bit first

This thread smacks of damage control since the PS4 wasn't the huge leap they were hoping it to be and the 720magicbox is still MIA (but sounding like a dancing han solo box & social media hub).

[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.

VIDEO game.

Can't have one without graphics. Not a gimmick.

I would say nice try, but it wasn't.

I want new hardware so I can experince bigger game worlds, better AI, physiscs, more immersion and new gameplay experinces that are not possible with current gen hardware. All these touchpad and motions contols does, is just take away control.

Turn off your TV or monitor, and play a game.

Then, come back and share your experiences...

Turn off your TV or monitor, and play a game.

Then, come back and share your experiences...

Rocker6

How about if OP is blind and think that everbody else is blind? So therethough it is a gimmick to him.

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Link3301"]

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

Link3301

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.

Not really, to me motion controls hampered gaming by making me play a way I DON'T WANT TOO!! You know how much I would love to be able to play Zelda: SS without the stupid motion controls. You know how much more difficult it was to play Heavy Rain with the move because the thing wouldn't regococnize my movements all the time (luckily you can play the game with the controller). Do you know how annoying it is to play Forza 4 by holding your arms in front of you acting like your holding a steering wheel, it gets tiring after just a couple minutes and arms feel like their going to fall off. Imagine playing GTA with motion controls, or a fighting game with motion controls.

An example how todays hardware over yesterdays would be Mortal Kombat. Take for example the new x-ray moves, where each character model has a 3-D skeleton and muscle model underneath that break and crack. This is something that would have been too taxing on the PS2/GC/Xbox. Now imagine with the PS4/720 how devs could take that further with being able to push more polygons, more breaking points can be added as (which would increase the poly count) and possibly being able to handle more physics as in keeping the arm in that shape, effecting the playstyle. Now that would require more CPU work as well as coding, but the more coding you have flowing through the CPU and being stored in memory, the more it's going to slow down the system. And keeping a solid Frame rate for fighters is crucial. 

Motion controls are GIMMICKS that do nothing for gaming other than being annoying. I and most gamers just want a solid controller. Better graphics/physics/AI don't hamper the gameplay like Motion Controls do. 

Only thing motions controls were good for was fun with some friends while drinking, then it became amusing, but for serious gametime, they hampered it.

Yeah, graphics are ultimately the icing on the cake but can help with the gameplay in some aspects. Like the extra power in my MK example. But also for immersion, imagine Bioshock on last gen consoles, it wouldn't be the same game. And it's hard to give you examples of what the PS4/720 will do that the PS3/360 couldn't until they arrive and show us what they can do.

My point, technology needs to move on at somepoint. 7 Years for the PS3 and 8 Years for the 360 is a long long run. While I'll admit I'm still happy with my PS3, I am looking foward to the PS4 and what it will bring. Doesn't mean I will unhook my PS3 as their are tons of great games out and still coming out, but I am looking foward to seeing the improvements next gen will bring. Motion controls are true gimmicks because they didn't evolve anything at all other than being a nuisance.

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

gim·mick

noun

1.

aningeniousornoveldevice,scheme,orstratagem,especiallyonedesignedtoattractattentionorincreaseappeal.

Also Motion Controls added a superior control method than Dual Analogs and Mouse and Keyboard for FPS.nini200

That is highly debatable. Really comes down to a matter of opinion, but this has to be the first time I ever heard Wii pointer > mouse/keyboard for FPS. 

Dual analog v. Wii pointer I have seen debated very heavily in regards to FPS. Really hurts the argument on the wii side when they don't even get half of the games that people say Wii controls would be better for...... guess that's another story though relevant to the discussion.

From my experience the only genre the Wii pointer clearly beats out dual analog in (but not mouse/keyboard) is point and click adventure games. Every other genre either has a very underwhelming showing on the Wii or if they do get a comparable game, motion controls aren't implemented well or at all in it.....

[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.

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.

[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.

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="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.

Half Life 2 came out in 2004. It even won IGN's 2004 PC Graphics of the Year, beating out Far Cry and Doom 3. When HL2 came out, its graphics was state of the art.

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

Better graphics lead to better immersion and better atmosphere. 

seanmcloughlin

[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.

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.

VIDEO game.

Can't have one without graphics. Not a gimmick.

I would say nice try, but it wasn't.

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 is true. If graphics are so importance to PC gamers, they wouldn't have wasted millions of hours playing Minecraft in the first place since the game looks like a 4-bit graphics.

I think graphical improvements were really important a while back. But I honestly don't think so anymore. Visuals have simply gotten way past the point of acceptability. Virtually every game we see on consoles these days look great. Some look worse than others, but even those games are usually very easy on the eyes. The graphical leaps in previous generations were very important. The leaps were massive. But now? It's really not that big a deal. Games look fine as they are. If they get better then great, but it's really not all that big a deal anymore. With that there's plenty of technological leaps that aren't about visuals that are still very important. Open world games have the most to gain going in to the next gen from a technological standpoint. At least I hope.

Correction, 3D is the ultimate gimmickSPBoss

Good graphics are always a plus but I don't care how a game looks as long as it has at least 8-bit graphics :P

Here's a great example of just how much HD graphics has improved gameplay:

 

Jag85

[QUOTE="SPBoss"]Correction, 3D is the ultimate gimmickSilenthps

Graphic tech is the reason why the WiiU has no third party support

The power of current consoles is a hinderance and has been for a long time. Why do you think Skyrim has closed cities when Morrowind had open cities in 2002?

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Here's a great example of just how much HD graphics has improved gameplay:

 

burgeg

Old-school action-adventure games had this something called "exploration", a concept that has become almost alien to so many new-school "hardcore" gamers who have become accustomed to being held by the hand down a tunnel.

With so much money, resources, time and effort wasted on trying to get the prettiest "HD graphics" possible, is it any wonder how simplified the gameplay has become these days?

[QUOTE="SPBoss"]Correction, 3D is the ultimate gimmickSilenthps