Since when does better graphics automatically not equal better gameplay?

somewhere along the line it seems that it has been decided that having better graphics in a video game just means that the gameplay must be worse. This, to me, just seems to be totally illogical. Never and always statements are usually the first ones you can dismiss and there have been an abundance of those on here lately.

I am by no means saying that having prettier pixels makes gameplay better, but having a motion sensing controller that you hold in both hands doesn't automatically make gameplay better either. Stronger hardware may primarily lead to a simple graphical upgrade but it doesn't stop there. Complex A.I. coding, realistic physics models, and seamless loading are very quickly becoming reality on "next-gen" PC's, the PS3, the 360, and even the Mac now it seems.

The Wii is not a bad system and it will continue to have a strong fanbase for years to come, but to blindly denounce all competition simply because they went with an "evolutionary" step instead of a "revolutionary" step is just foolish.

Sheep are not the only ones who do this, I'l use Crysis as the example, alot of non-hermits say "But where is teh gameplay :cry:|" when theres clearly loads going for it in that department aswell .... its just fanboyism...

Graphics are a very important part of games, denying that is well ... not "True Gamers" like some people seem to think.

better graphics at the expense of gameplay is what most sheep refer to. Although i have actually rarely played a game that was "all flash and no substance", as games with high graphical power often have lots of work done on them which means the gameplay is often worked on.

as the crysis guy said above me it started when the wii was made...go figure :roll:

somewhere along the line it seems that it has been decided that having better graphics in a video game just means that the gameplay must be worse. This, to me, just seems to be totally illogical. Never and always statements are usually the first ones you can dismiss and there have been an abundance of those on here lately.Dark_Morphius

It is illogical but it isn't OTHER PEOPLE who are the illogical ones. It is you for not being able to understand what they are saying, and instead creating the logical fallacy known as a "straw man."

NObody on planet earth through the histroy of time has EVER SAID that good graphics = bad gameplay. If you think they have then see the above sentence. What people say is that gameplay is the most important aspect of any game and that it is primary to graphics. People say that too many devs focus on pumping out pretty graphics but end up making bad games as a result.

BUt for you to actually think that people say graphics always hurt gameplay is purely dishonest on your part.

[QUOTE="Dark_Morphius"] somewhere along the line it seems that it has been decided that having better graphics in a video game just means that the gameplay must be worse. This, to me, just seems to be totally illogical. Never and always statements are usually the first ones you can dismiss and there have been an abundance of those on here lately.ZIMdoom

It is illogical but it isn't OTHER PEOPLE who are the illogical ones. It is you for not being able to understand what they are saying, and instead creating the logical fallacy known as a "straw man."

NObody on planet earth through the histroy of time has EVER SAID that good graphics = bad gameplay. If you think they have then see the above sentence. What people say is that gameplay is the most important aspect of any game and that it is primary to graphics. People say that too many devs focus on pumping out pretty graphics but end up making bad games as a result.

BUt for you to actually think that people say graphics always hurt gameplay is purely dishonest on your part.

let me point out that literally a few posts above you was this.

Since the Wii was invented.... :roll:explicthangnail

he is stating that better graphics automatically equals worse gameplay since the wii was invented. I don't agree with his statement but how can you say that no one has ever said it when it was said in this very topic and in several others before this one. You are making another one of those foolish always or never statements. No matter what random comment, no matter how inane or illogical, no matter how offensive, you can rest assured that someone, somewhere, sometime, has stated it.

somewhere along the line it seems that it has been decided that having better graphics in a video game just means that the gameplay must be worse.Dark_Morphius

The reasoning is that devs might be encouraged to "settle" for inferior gameplay if they think they can compensate for it with good graphics. This has happened in a lot of high profile games, one of the most recent and most obvious examples being Genji 2.

but having a motion sensing controller that you hold in both hands doesn't automatically make gameplay better either.Dark_Morphius

Of course it doesn't automatically make gameplay better. The point of the Wiimote is simply to remove limitations to game design that exist with a standard controller. A lot of genres have already been shown to be better played with the Wiimote than with a gamepad.

Complex A.I. coding, realistic physics models, and seamless loading are very quickly becoming reality on "next-gen" PC's, the PS3, the 360, and even the Mac now it seems.Dark_Morphius

You're deluding yourself. AI is not that demanding on hardware. The most advanced AI in any game right now that I can think of is FEAR, and that can run on a five year old 1.4GHz Athlon with no hiccuping. Physics? Physics are already realistic in last generation games. It would take a truly revolutionary leap in physics to make a difference, and that kind of leap can't be had even with 360/PS3 hardware. And seamless loading already exists on last gen hardware.

better graphics at the expense of gameplay is what most sheep refer to. Although i have actually rarely played a game that was "all flash and no substance", as games with high graphical power often have lots of work done on them which means the gameplay is often worked on.

as the crysis guy said above me it started when the wii was made...go figure :roll:

samusarmada

Like you said, there are almost no games like that. However, the point is that you don't need amazing graphics for a good game. That once was the case, but after the N64 generation ended, graphics stopped changing gameplay.

Both hardware power and the wiimote can procure great gameplay if well used.m_machine024

:lol:

It makes a better experience of a game. As far as expanding gameplay, it would do little to improve on it.

Unless it's a game from N64 or PS1. Better graphics may improve the experience significantly....

It makes a better experience of a game. As far as expanding gameplay, it would do little to improve on it.tocool340

Really? How would you play SSB on the Megadrive? Sonic mechanics would only go so far, no?

Graphics make -- yes, make a game.

[QUOTE="m_machine024"]Both hardware power and the wiimote can procure great gameplay if well used.SpecialForcesOp

:lol:

Since you said you got wii day one.

than you say you wont buy wii till after this gen

[QUOTE="tocool340"]It makes a better experience of a game. As far as expanding gameplay, it would do little to improve on it.Xolver

Really? How would you play SSB on the Megadrive? Sonic mechanics would only go so far, no?

Graphics make -- yes, make a game.

I already knew that. Thats why I said better graphics give better experience. 2-D and 3_D are completely different from each other, and they both can have enhanced experience when graphics get a upgrade. But some sports games like madden don't seem to benifit from agraphics upgrade sinc it basically feels like you have already played the game over again, only difference, it's on a game system that outputs better graphics...

Both hardware power and the wiimote can procure great gameplay if well used.m_machine024

Too bad the wii has no hardware power.

[QUOTE="samusarmada"]

better graphics at the expense of gameplay is what most sheep refer to. Although i have actually rarely played a game that was "all flash and no substance", as games with high graphical power often have lots of work done on them which means the gameplay is often worked on.

as the crysis guy said above me it started when the wii was made...go figure :roll:

Tylendal

Like you said, there are almost no games like that. However, the point is that you don't need amazing graphics for a good game. That once was the case, but after the N64 generation ended, graphics stopped changing gameplay.

Wow. So not true. Graphics are what make the gameplay in gears of war possible. Graphics are what make Dead Rising the nail biting experience that it is.

It's true, graphics can do just as much as a new controller can do, it's just fanboys who believe graphics is the only way to go that bug me.kittykatz5k

Gameplay is about how the game controls and how you play it, it's a seperate category. Graphics do nothing for gameplay . graphics just make the game better looking but Gameplay is how you play it and Graphics are what your looking at. You can't combine them thats why they were given differant names. "True Gamers" don't care about Graphics. If you can only play a good looking game your not a gamer just a poser.

I dunno what the TC is talking about cause AI is dependant on the programers not the strength of the hardware.

somewhere along the line it seems that it has been decided that having better graphics in a video game just means that the gameplay must be worse. This, to me, just seems to be totally illogical. Never and always statements are usually the first ones you can dismiss and there have been an abundance of those on here lately.

I am by no means saying that having prettier pixels makes gameplay better, but having a motion sensing controller that you hold in both hands doesn't automatically make gameplay better either. Stronger hardware may primarily lead to a simple graphical upgrade but it doesn't stop there. Complex A.I. coding, realistic physics models, and seamless loading are very quickly becoming reality on "next-gen" PC's, the PS3, the 360, and even the Mac now it seems.

The Wii is not a bad system and it will continue to have a strong fanbase for years to come, but to blindly denounce all competition simply because they went with an "evolutionary" step instead of a "revolutionary" step is just foolish.

Dark_Morphius

It kind of remind me of the new Starwars movies. Many panned them because the special effects took the focus off what made the first three successful, the people. Of course it didn't help that the movies had some of the worst acting I've seen ever.....Jar Jar had to be the worst idea I've ever seen.

But I can see how some people can draw the same conclusions to the game industry. I personally don't see it, the better graphics always wows me.....AT FIRST, then I concentrate on gameplay. IF it plays like crap how do I enjoy the game. There are a lot of X360 games that play great and look great. There should be PS3 games that play and look great in a couple months. So I think you are right, graphics don't hurt the gameplay as long as it's done correctly.

personally I've had a harder time (gameplay wise) using that dam wonder wond controller.....so I'm not sure Wii fans want to try the "gameplay"card at the moment.

Because graphics are not gameplay. Gameplay is gameplay. It's a pretty simple concept.MrDziekuje

They are however very ehavily tied together.

3 Game Examples

FEAR - Good graphics for the scare factor/emmersion.

Crysis - Not making this long list of why hardware improves the gameplay.

Thief 1/2/3

I can cite a few cases where Graphics actually translate into gameplay.

This mostly involves crappy resolution FPS games. Particularly one I tried to play with my brother, Conflict Vietnam. In splitscreen mode, the resolution gets chopped into utter crap, and I'd imagine that the SNES could produce the same level of graphics if in single mode. Seriously, you can barely see where you're aiming or if this is an enemy facing you or what. It's literally almost unplayable in 2 player mode due to the horrendous graphics.

But the fact is now that we are at the point where graphics shouldn't make the game unplayable from a standpoint you can't distinguish things or aim properly.

Early generation polygonal games suffered from this problem, but with the advent of the PS3 and 360 and better and better PC games, this problem is moot now.

But anyone who says that good graphics don't enhance the gameplay in some way is just stupid.

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="samusarmada"]

better graphics at the expense of gameplay is what most sheep refer to. Although i have actually rarely played a game that was "all flash and no substance", as games with high graphical power often have lots of work done on them which means the gameplay is often worked on.

as the crysis guy said above me it started when the wii was made...go figure :roll:

Bread_or_Decide

Like you said, there are almost no games like that. However, the point is that you don't need amazing graphics for a good game. That once was the case, but after the N64 generation ended, graphics stopped changing gameplay.

Wow. So not true. Graphics are what make the gameplay in gears of war possible. Graphics are what make Dead Rising the nail biting experience that it is.

I must disagree with you.

Don't get me wrong, graphics and raw console horsepower add a lot to both of those games. However, even without those great graphics each of those games would still be good. Gameplay is not affected by graphics. Great games can have poor graphics just as easily as a poor game can have great graphics.

I love pretty graphics. I want a PS3 and X-Box 360 so that I may experience great graphics that are not possible on my Nintendo Wii. However, I will never accept this ridiculous argument that great graphics are a must for a good game in any generation. The Wii is just as capable of turning out great games this generation as the 360 or PS3. To believe otherwise is basically stating that no matter how horrible a PS3 or 360 game is, it will be better than any Wii game just because it has better graphics.

First time gameplay took a beating because of graphics was FFVII. Since then, as time went on, especially in the case of the FF series it's been that way. The graphics improved, but the gameplay was getting killed. Hell, I think I spent more time watching cutscenes than playing the game.

I also think the top down 2D graphics of the first couple of GTA games were more fun than the current incarnations of the GTA series in 3D.

There's probably a pretty strong correlation between excellent graphics and quality gameplay.

If you look at some of the best-looking games from last gen (RE4, Riddick, Ninja Gaiden, MGS3, God of War, etc.) you'll realize you're also looking at some of the best gameplay around.
Teufelhuhn

And why do you think that is?

The answer is because if someone takes the time to put in great graphics, they will probably have great gameplay and vice versa. In general when you have a quality game, it's quality on all aspects.

The answer is because if someone takes the time to put in great graphics, they will probably have great gameplay and vice versa. In general when you have a quality game, it's quality on all aspects.

SemiMaster

If graphics and gameplay were a direct corrollation, then GS wouldn't have two different categories in their reviews. Simple.

Also, I don't see what these people are saying about graphics "making" a game. Are you saying that it is impossible for you to play anything from before last gen? You can't go back and play those great games because they are inferior (in graphics) by today's standards? That's a bit shallow if you ask me.

Plus, I could tell you a couple games that looked pretty but had bad gameplay, but take note that this is my opinion. Prince of Persia. That was a beautiful games, but it was horribly redundant and annoying. Dead Rising, looked great, but it just turned into GTA after a while. You get so strong (start out pretty strong too)that nothing is really any trouble for you. Ninja Gaiden, looks great. But just because you make a game incredibly difficult doesn't make it great. I could make a 2D platformer with a billion things flying at you that makes it near impossible to move, would that get a great score? I don't think so, but people think it should because the game is difficult.

There's probably a pretty strong correlation between excellent graphics and quality gameplay.

If you look at some of the best-looking games from last gen (RE4, Riddick, Ninja Gaiden, MGS3, God of War, etc.) you'll realize you're also looking at some of the best gameplay around.
Teufelhuhn

I agree.

Usually a great game will also have stunning graphics because the developers want to create an overall great game. They don't want underachieve in any of the many different "departments" that must come together to shape a great game. However, I'm just against the blanket statement that all games must have great graphics to be good.

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"]

The answer is because if someone takes the time to put in great graphics, they will probably have great gameplay and vice versa. In general when you have a quality game, it's quality on all aspects.

Teufelhuhn

And then there are games like Genji 2........

Granted, a minority, but evidence that gameplay and graphics share only an indirect correlation.

somewhere along the line it seems that it has been decided that having better graphics in a video game just means that the gameplay must be worse. This, to me, just seems to be totally illogical. Never and always statements are usually the first ones you can dismiss and there have been an abundance of those on here lately.

I am by no means saying that having prettier pixels makes gameplay better, but having a motion sensing controller that you hold in both hands doesn't automatically make gameplay better either. Stronger hardware may primarily lead to a simple graphical upgrade but it doesn't stop there. Complex A.I. coding, realistic physics models, and seamless loading are very quickly becoming reality on "next-gen" PC's, the PS3, the 360, and even the Mac now it seems.

The Wii is not a bad system and it will continue to have a strong fanbase for years to come, but to blindly denounce all competition simply because they went with an "evolutionary" step instead of a "revolutionary" step is just foolish.

Dark_Morphius

Well said. I like the Wii, and I own one, but that doesn't mean that good graphics are a bad thing. But you must remember that some people get obessed with graphics, I mean the people who will not play retro games because "teh lamerz grafix"

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

[QUOTE="Dark_Morphius"] somewhere along the line it seems that it has been decided that having better graphics in a video game just means that the gameplay must be worse. This, to me, just seems to be totally illogical. Never and always statements are usually the first ones you can dismiss and there have been an abundance of those on here lately.Dark_Morphius

It is illogical but it isn't OTHER PEOPLE who are the illogical ones. It is you for not being able to understand what they are saying, and instead creating the logical fallacy known as a "straw man."

NObody on planet earth through the histroy of time has EVER SAID that good graphics = bad gameplay. If you think they have then see the above sentence. What people say is that gameplay is the most important aspect of any game and that it is primary to graphics. People say that too many devs focus on pumping out pretty graphics but end up making bad games as a result.

BUt for you to actually think that people say graphics always hurt gameplay is purely dishonest on your part.

let me point out that literally a few posts above you was this.

Since the Wii was invented.... :roll:explicthangnail

he is stating that better graphics automatically equals worse gameplay since the wii was invented. I don't agree with his statement but how can you say that no one has ever said it when it was said in this very topic and in several others before this one. You are making another one of those foolish always or never statements. No matter what random comment, no matter how inane or illogical, no matter how offensive, you can rest assured that someone, somewhere, sometime, has stated it.

1) Clearly you missed the sarcastic "eye rolling" smiley in the post you talk about.

2)It is extremely disengenuous for you to accuse ME of making always/never statements. Especially since the whole point of my arguement is that NOBODY is making always/never statements you accuse them of. It is merely your inability to think logically and rationally. INstead all you hear is criticism and then extrapolate it to mean something nobody ever said. It's like me saying "I like apples more than oranges" and then you responding with, "Why do people who eat apples always say oranges suck and have no value." See how ridiculous that arguement is? It's basically what you have done here.

3) If you have to rely on "someone, somewhere, sometime" saying something to make your point...then you probably don't have a real point to begin with. A crazy person downtown once said that his Xbox channels alien voices...so I guess all lemmings must be crazy alien lovers then according to your brand of logic.

I reckon that good graphics add to the enjoyment and playability of a game. I don't believe graphics have to be photo realistic, it just all depends on the type of game. Everyone has there own view on graphics, I enjoy every kind from cell shaded to realistic.

Graphics are only second to gameplay

[QUOTE="m_machine024"]Both hardware power and the wiimote can procure great gameplay if well used.SpecialForcesOp

:lol:

[QUOTE="m_machine024"]Both hardware power and the wiimote can procure great gameplay if well used.Bread_or_Decide

Too bad the wii has no hardware power.

Wow. So not true. Graphics are what make the gameplay in gears of war possible. Graphics are what make Dead Rising the nail biting experience that it is.

I don't see what in Gears of War couldn't be done on last gen consoles other than the graphics.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="SemiMaster"]

The answer is because if someone takes the time to put in great graphics, they will probably have great gameplay and vice versa. In general when you have a quality game, it's quality on all aspects.

mjarantilla

And then there are games like Genji 2........

Granted, a minority, but evidence that gameplay and graphics share only an indirect correlation.

Yes, there are a few games that fall into the "Awesome graphics crappy gameplay category" and vice versa (the latter is better). But then usually when one sucks the other sucks too.

[QUOTE="Dark_Morphius"]somewhere along the line it seems that it has been decided that having better graphics in a video game just means that the gameplay must be worse.mjarantilla

The reasoning is that devs might be encouraged to "settle" for inferior gameplay if they think they can compensate for it with good graphics. This has happened in a lot of high profile games, one of the most recent and most obvious examples being Genji 2.

but having a motion sensing controller that you hold in both hands doesn't automatically make gameplay better either.Dark_Morphius

Of course it doesn't automatically make gameplay better. The point of the Wiimote is simply to remove limitations to game design that exist with a standard controller. A lot of genres have already been shown to be better played with the Wiimote than with a gamepad.

Complex A.I. coding, realistic physics models, and seamless loading are very quickly becoming reality on "next-gen" PC's, the PS3, the 360, and even the Mac now it seems.Dark_Morphius

You're deluding yourself. AI is not that demanding on hardware. The most advanced AI in any game right now that I can think of is FEAR, and that can run on a five year old 1.4GHz Athlon with no hiccuping. Physics? Physics are already realistic in last generation games. It would take a truly revolutionary leap in physics to make a difference, and that kind of leap can't be had even with 360/PS3 hardware. And seamless loading already exists on last gen hardware.

I think he was emphasizing the fact that a lot of people when they see a game that looks really good, they will automatically assume that it is all flash and no substance - while I am not sure the amount of people who do this, or if any actually exist - it is my assumption that is what he meant.

Regardless of whether or not some games play better on the Wii... to be honest, the actual motion sensing IN the Wii feels pretty low quality. It is too hard to do anything too precise with the controls and that in turn restricts the Wii a lot more than a lot of people think.

I have used this example quite a few times in the last few days - but check out the Force Unleashed if you haven't already - they are sporting a lot of very advanced physics (metal bending percisely and behaving how metal does, Wood splintering and breaking - but every time it does it is unique) and AI (stormtroopers struggling to prevent the force from pushing/pulling them and/or gathering their wits and fighting back even when being held back by the force AND supporting allies). There is even MORE than can probably done in the future with physics and AI... and to be completely frank it sounds more like you don't WANT there to be more, as if bottlenecking the potential justifies the Wii's current hardware more.

I think he was emphasizing the fact that a lot of people when they see a game that looks really good, they will automatically assume that it is all flash and no substance - while I am not sure the amount of people who do this, or if any actually exist - it is my assumption that is what he meant.Kinitari

I don't think that the sort of presumption he describes is commonplace. I mean, I certainly get excited over shiny new screens, but even moreso over gameplay videos.

Regardless of whether or not some games play better on the Wii... to be honest, the actual motion sensing IN the Wii feels pretty low quality. It is too hard to do anything too precise with the controls and that in turn restricts the Wii a lot more than a lot of people think.Kinitari

I have used this example quite a few times in the last few days - but check out the Force Unleashed if you haven't already - they are sporting a lot of very advanced physics (metal bending percisely and behaving how metal does, Wood splintering and breaking - but every time it does it is unique) and AI (stormtroopers struggling to prevent the force from pushing/pulling them and/or gathering their wits and fighting back even when being held back by the force AND supporting allies). There is even MORE than can probably done in the future with physics and AI... and to be completely frank it sounds more like you don't WANT there to be more, as if bottlenecking the potential justifies the Wii's current hardware more.Kinitari

Here's the rub: Tell me precisely how those will enhance gameplay. Does it really make a difference, gameplay-wise, if a bridge breaks a halfway along its length instead of a third of the way along its length? Does it really matter if a wood plank splinters differently a thousand different ways (dynamic physics) or a dozen different ways (pre-scripted physics)? Will you even be able to tell the difference when you're fully immersed?

BTW, the AI thing in the Force Unleashed video has yet to be demonstrated in prolonged gameplay. Certainly they demonstrate some situational awareness, but again, that is not that advanced, and neither is it particularly hardware-intensive. You're talking about the demo where they throw Stormtroopers at a beam and they try to hang on, right? That's not too different from when you accidentally walk Link or Wander off a ledge and he automatically grabs the edge to keep from falling. Or is there another Force Unleashed demo I haven't seen yet?

And it's still entirely reactionary. When games start to implement multistep intelligence, i.e. anticipation and planning, that's when I think AI will drastically change gameplay. It'll be as big of a change to AI as the change from 2D to 3D was for graphics. But I don't think that will be achieved within this generation, and right now, the incremental changes to AI and physics can be compared to the difference in visual quality between the 2D graphics of the SNES and Genesis.

as if bottlenecking the potential justifies the Wii's current hardware more.Kinitari

The hardware is not the bottleneck yet; the software technology is. The AI in current generation PC games don't even come close to maxing out the power of even five year old Pentium CPUs. Well, they do in some cases, but mostly because of sheer data volume rather than complexity. Like in mass RTS games like C&C Generals with seven computer AI opponents, my PC chugs because it has to control a thousand independent units at once, but the AI is no more complex than it is against one opponent.

[quote="Kinitari"]I think he was emphasizing the fact that a lot of people when they see a game that looks really good, they will automatically assume that it is all flash and no substance - while I am not sure the amount of people who do this, or if any actually exist - it is my assumption that is what he meant.mjarantilla

I don't think that the sort of presumption he describes is commonplace. I mean, I certainly get excited over shiny new screens, but even moreso over gameplay videos.

Regardless of whether or not some games play better on the Wii... to be honest, the actual motion sensing IN the Wii feels pretty low quality. It is too hard to do anything too precise with the controls and that in turn restricts the Wii a lot more than a lot of people think.Kinitari

I have used this example quite a few times in the last few days - but check out the Force Unleashed if you haven't already - they are sporting a lot of very advanced physics (metal bending percisely and behaving how metal does, Wood splintering and breaking - but every time it does it is unique) and AI (stormtroopers struggling to prevent the force from pushing/pulling them and/or gathering their wits and fighting back even when being held back by the force AND supporting allies). There is even MORE than can probably done in the future with physics and AI... and to be completely frank it sounds more like you don't WANT there to be more, as if bottlenecking the potential justifies the Wii's current hardware more.Kinitari

Here's the rub: Tell me precisely how those will enhance gameplay. Does it really make a difference, gameplay-wise, if a bridge breaks a halfway along its length instead of a third of the way along its length? Does it really matter if a wood plank splinters differently a thousand different ways (dynamic physics) or a dozen different ways (pre-scripted physics)? Will you even be able to tell the difference when you're fully immersed?

BTW, the AI thing in the Force Unleashed video has yet to be demonstrated in prolonged gameplay. Certainly they demonstrate some situational awareness, but again, that is not that advanced, and neither is it particularly hardware-intensive. You're talking about the demo where they throw Stormtroopers at a beam and they try to hang on, right? That's not too different from when you accidentally walk Link or Wander off a ledge and he automatically grabs the edge to keep from falling. Or is there another Force Unleashed demo I haven't seen yet?

And it's still entirely reactionary. When games start to implement multistep intelligence, i.e. anticipation and planning, that's when I think AI will drastically change gameplay. It'll be as big of a change to AI as the change from 2D to 3D was for graphics. But I don't think that will be achieved within this generation, and right now, the incremental changes to AI and physics can be compared to the difference in visual quality between the 2D graphics of the SNES and Genesis.

as if bottlenecking the potential justifies the Wii's current hardware more.Kinitari

The hardware is not the bottleneck yet; the software technology is. The AI in current generation PC games don't even come close to maxing out the power of even five year old Pentium CPUs. Well, they do in some cases, but mostly because of sheer data volume rather than complexity. Like in mass RTS games like C&C Generals with seven computer AI opponents, my PC chugs because it has to control a thousand independent units at once, but the AI is no more complex than it is against one opponent.

Erm, forgive my impatience, but I am not the type to break down your response into sections and reply to each part seperately... hopefully you'll understand what each of my points is in reference to ^^.

While I am not too sure if that sort of presumption exists either, I myself sometimes worry when I see a large emphasis (on the developer or publishers part) on a games graphical prowess, almost as though they are trying to stem the flow of attention away from gameplay. So I can imagine some of the more jaded gamers immediately assuming lots of graphical huzzah = weak gameplay.

In regards to Wii motion controls, I was actually speaking from personal experience... with Wii sports for example, the lack of stability in the golf section for example is borderline frustrating. And in other games, like Wario Ware, sometimes in the 5 seconds or so that I have, my Wii mote is not precise enough to really do what I want it to do. And I hear that in Red Steel the controls are ridiculously annoying. But I guess it is a software issue if RE4 is smooth - hopefully that pans out well.

It is not so much that the wood -looks- like what real wood looks like, it's more like the wood -behaves- like what real wood behaves like. For example, having to use the appropriate object to break through a wall because of the properties of you - the wall - and the object. While I am sure this -could- be scripted, it lacks the dynamic feel of something that is even beyond the developers hands - what if you were just given a 'sandbox' level, where using your own wit and knowledge of physics, would have to get through it? I am thinking kind of little big planet meets big time physics. Oh random idea popped into my head - lets say you need to go up 1 level, but the stair case is flooded with enemies, what if you could knock a whole into the ceiling and create a sort of ramp out of the debris? While I admit I am no developer and because of that my creativity is weak in comparasion, leaving it up to a big name to figure out the possible outcomes of utilizing this technology, I genuinely feel a lot of great things can come from it.

Using your AI example - what level of dynamic detail would it deliver if (while fighting a large group of people) they all had their own seperate personalities, maybe randomly assigned to them at the beginning of a level? Some of them maybe prefering a melee method of combat, some ranged. Some more cowardly and some extremely reckless. Would it not provide a unique experience every time? Combine this with a world that could behave uniquely because of your actions, I feel that it would give each game a huge amount of replayability and a nice breath of fresh air.

Call me a dreamer, but it's ideas like that, that make me hopeful for the future of gaming.

So I can imagine some of the more jaded gamers immediately assuming lots of graphical huzzah = weak gameplay.Kinitari

I think this is more a misconception than reality. I think that people such as the OP simply mistake the jaded gamers' indifference to screenshots for the aforementioned belief that good graphics means bad gameplay.

For example, having to use the appropriate object to break through a wall because of the properties of you - the wall - and the object. While I am sure this -could- be scripted, it lacks the dynamic feel of something that is even beyond the developers handsKinitari

How would you define "dynamic feel"? Can you really tell whether the explosions even in 360 games like GRAW and Lost Planet and such are dynamic or pre-scripted? Did it matter in Gears of War? I'm fairly sure that all of these games did, in fact, feature pre-scripted effects rather than dynamic effects most of the time.

Basically, when there's a lot of things going on at the same tiem on the screen, everything appears dynamic. Unless you're actually looking for a repeating pattern, but at that point you're not really playing the game anyway.

Oh random idea popped into my head - lets say you need to go up 1 level, but the stair case is flooded with enemies, what if you could knock a whole into the ceiling and create a sort of ramp out of the debris?Kinitari

Believe me, this occurred to me as well, but the truth is that for most single-player games, that much freedom would wreak havoc on level designers. Games like RFOM, Gears, Halo, MGS, etc., basically anything with a directed campaign would see only minimal benefit from this implementation of dynamic physics, because developers would still have to go through the game and remove instances when that kind of freedom would cause a blockage. Depending on the level design, it could take more or less time and effort to simply pre-define acceptable instances rather than implement everything and go through and exclude the unacceptable instances.

I would think that open world and sandbox games would be the main genres to benefit from this sort of implementation, but even those face problems with giving so much control over to the player. Game design has always been about balancing player freedom with scripted direction, and simply giving more freedom doesn't necessarily result in better gameplay.

Using your AI example - what level of dynamic detail would it deliver if (while fighting a large group of people) they all had their own seperate personalities, maybe randomly assigned to them at the beginning of a level? Some of them maybe prefering a melee method of combat, some ranged. Some more cowardly and some extremely reckless. Would it not provide a unique experience every time? Combine this with a world that could behave uniquely because of your actions, I feel that it would give each game a huge amount of replayability and a nice breath of fresh air.Kinitari

Speaking as a recreational paintball player now rather than a gamer, I can say that your opponent's personality doesn't matter a great deal, especially when fighting against groups, because that requires a level of thinking that is generally inappropriate for twitch-based gameplay. Certainly there are people who might be able to appreciate that kind of subtlety, but that should not be emphasized over the primary experience. I don't think you'd find it as refreshing as you expect it to be. Besides, varying reactions to stimuli has already been done in gaming.

Sheep are not the only ones who do this, I'l use Crysis as the example, alot of non-hermits say "But where is teh gameplay :cry:|" when theres clearly loads going for it in that department aswell .... its just fanboyism...

Graphics are a very important part of games, denying that is well ... not "True Gamers" like some people seem to think.

Meu2k7