Since I don't actively blog on this website, I will promote my other blogs via this website.

The blog about my life:

http://adventuresofbenny.wordpress.com/

Posts already on there:

(soon to come)

The blog where I parody songs using unorthodox interpretations:

http://songsreallymean.wordpress.com/

Songs I've already parodied:

Justin Bieber - Baby

Mike Posner - Cooler Than Me

I don't quite comprehend it. I can't believe how many people on System Wars bash or praise games and expect everybody to go with their opinion as if it were fact. Even when it comes to graphics, it's all subjective, not objective, so I can't understand so much... stupidity. It's gotten to a point where system wars is known for it. That's kinda pathetic, don't you think?

Honestly, I don't think a forum like System Wars shouldn't exist. What is the problem if Xbox 360 has a game, but the PS3 and Wii don't have it? What's the problem if the PS3 have a game, but the Wii and 360 don't? You aren't forced to get the games you don't want to get, so don't get it. If somebody else chooses to get it, let them get it. You have no say in it, so don't act like you do.

System Wars makes me lose a little more hope in humanity every time I end up going there looking to see if there are actually any intelligent debates. I know, I know... I'm too hopeful...

Bah. I could say more... but just... Bah.

Many gamers fear the Wii's effect on the game industry, especially the "hardcore" gamers. However, it is my view that there is no need to fear.

First of all, "hardcore" gamers will not be alienated. The initial uptake of the Wii by the general populus does not include enough hardcore gamers to demand publishers and developers put out games for the "hardcore." However, were we all "hardcore" to begin with? I remember my younger days when I was a pretty clueless gamer. I started my gaming career with... some word game. Now I am a much more avid gamer, and definitely much more "hardcore" than before. I'm not in the same league as some elite folks, but still, the point is the same. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Now, it is acknowledged that the Wii has drawn in more folks into gaming from a variety of backgrounds that are not hardcore. If all these people played the Wii and got exposed to gaming with some more casual games, why can't they "graduate" to the "hardcore" games? Even if just a fraction of the people become "hardcore", it is a significant boost to the hardcore population. This isn't a bad thing, is it?

Then imagine this afterwards. Soon after these casuals begin to have pangs of hardcore-ness, Nintendo can release a better console. While the Playstation 3 is supposed to have a lifespan of 10 years, the immense cost of it, and the cost of surpassing it, will probably prevent Sony from releasing another console until the Playstation 3 is as profitable as the Playstation 2 was later on. This might take a while, as things are going at the moment. As for the Xbox 360... who knows what Microsoft will do. Whatever they do, though, it seems they can't truly break free of their installed base (unless they do something drastic or something). However, Nintendo is already making profits with the Wii... in 4 or 5 years, what prevents them from releasing a console that is slightly superior or equal to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3? By then the component prices would have gone down, so the console can be inexpensive at launch. Also, because of the hardware power (and assuming a much increased install base of the Wii) we can expect ports of older games that previously could only be played on the 360 or PS3 (I'm thinking maybe a Wii-esque version of GRAW for this new console by Ubisoft). This game-plan works well with people who have grown familiar with Nintendo as well as old Nintendo fanboys as well, who would have spent the same as getting an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 for their 2 consoles. Admittedly, they are a bit behind in terms of power, but hey... they're having more fun, right? At least if they're Nintendo fans. I know for a fact that I'd have fun, as long as there are some quality titles and/or titles that I enjoy (ex- there are some games that got really bad critical review that I actually enjoyed).

I think the Wii is actually good for gaming for this reason. Especially since for those who want to "graduate" sooner, they can always go to the Xbox or the Playstation... or wait for developers to get their act together and actually make good games for the Wii because it is very, very, very possible.

On a side note, unadulterated capitalism sucks.

With this latest generation of consoles, the importance of graphics is once again questioned. The Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 are more graphics oriented while the Wii is more "fun" oriented.

Let me begin by making sure I explain that this is about graphics and its importance, and not anything to do with the power of any individual system.

There are three options to explore that I've encountered on System Wars: graphics>gameplay, graphics=gameplay, graphics

Graphics>Gameplay

I'll "prove" this one by counter example. Let's take a tech demo as our example. Now, tech demos tend to have the best graphics because they are designed to show off a graphics card or a game or something. Generally, there is no gameplay in a tech demo, or there is very little. However, if graphics>gameplay is true, then this tech demo should placate gamers all over the world. After all, what reason is there to play games but to appreciate the pretty graphics?

Of course, I was being a bit pretentious there. I hope you could bear with me. The point is that uber-amazing graphics as a focus to a game leads to shortcomings in other areas. If a developer concentrated solely on graphics, what happens to the AI of the enemies? the level design? the weapons? the combat system? the story? the characters? the interface?

If a developer spent time in all aspects of a game and also managed to achieve excellent graphics, kudos to them. However, too much focus on the graphics leads to a game that is terrible to play. Of course, gamers don't have to worry about this. They only care about the end result. I believe that is the reason that 'graphics>gameplay' ever came to be, because of the ignorance of gamers who play the games without imagination and without heart. As cheesy as it sounds, a gamer does need heart. And an imagination. What use is there in a game perfectly mimicking what we can experience in the world around us? I know the latest generation of people can't have experienced, say, WWII. In those cases, photorealism is a valid claim. However, as stories become more fantastic, why limit ourself to what we percieve as "realism?" Examples of this escape from realism would be Pixar Animation films, or comics and graphic novels (300 comes to mind). Where could this have been used? I would say Resistance: Fall of Man (R:FoM) would have benefitted from an escape from realism. Already the weapons and enemies are deviating from reality. As such, instead of shooting for "realism" in terms of what humans see, why not imagine something more wonderful for the world of R:FoM?

I applaud developers who pursue alternative realities. Okami and The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker are the examples I would use. I haven't heard the "kiddie" label thrown at Okami, but I have heard it for the Wind Waker. You know what? I agree. It is kiddie. It uses imagination, something all "adults" clearly don't have. And you know what? How sad it is for a man or woman to live a life without imagination, to be confined to "reality."

Graphics>gameplay? Never.

Graphics

This I don't agree with either. If this were true, developers could save time by not hiring any artists or any programmers related to graphics and animation and just hire programmers that program a 'perfect' game... a game that is perfectly immersive, perfectly interactive, and so on. Zork comes to mind... let's just make an updated version of zork. Or use simple pixels to convey a story.

Ah, once again I am being pretentious. Still, graphics is not less important than game play.

I'm getting tired of writing... I think my final point will explain my thoughts clearly, so let me address one more thing then I'll get to what I see graphics as... and what I think you should see it as, too.

Graphics=Gameplay

Now, this can be taken two ways. Either graphics is gameplay, or graphics and gameplay are entirely separate entities that are equal. The first case is completely bogus, and the discussion of "Graphics>Gameplay" covers it, I think. As for graphics and gameplay being separate entities... well... here's my point, and it'll explain it:

The Answer to the Graphics Debate

Have you all seen a rope? Have you seen what it's made of? It's made of smaller threads wrapped together, intertwined. (Last time I checked, anyway...) Now, imagine all parts of a game as individual threads. When put together, all parts combined determine the strength of the resulting rope (aka the final game). Let's take this analogy a bit further. Each individual thread on a rope tends to have smaller threads that make up that thread. That is, a rope is a set of threads within a set of threads within a set of threads and so on. We'll imagine it being a set of threads within a set of threads.

Each thread of the rope that forms the game is composed of threads that are the basic aspects of a game: graphics, sound, etc. These basic aspects come together in various compositions to make other aspects of a game... the threads that make the rope. For example, presentation is mostly graphics, but also deals with sound and organization and such.

Ultimately, the final point is that graphics are important, but not for prettiness' sake. Graphics actually have to contribute to the game. You could have a menu rendered in 1092837104928374019873 pixels, but if the presentation is bad (bad organization, not intuitive, and so on), then a person is turned off from the game just a bit (or completely, maybe). This is akin to one thread in our rope breaking in the analogy. The entire rope may still hold, but one part of it is broken. Let's imagine a game's environment, though. Let's say the game in question has the best graphics ever. But you couldn't do anything. See that door over there? No matter how much you try to open it, or shoot at it, nothing will happen to it. You could launch a rocket launcher at it, but it would still be there as if nothing happened to it. Just a few feet down, however, a huge concrete wall crumbles after a few pistol shots. Why? Because the game is so graphics-heavy that it couldn't generate an entire world for you to explore. And the story doesn't cover a world that big. And the developers didn't have the creativity to get around that fact. And the developers didn't have any need to get around that fact because there are brain-dead gamers without any imagination that lap up every game they put out because it has a few million more pixels than the last game.

What does this mean? This means more games should be like GTA, or Oblivion (but better, of course).

How does it affect games, though? What happens when a game that is traditionally linear (such as an RPG) is forced into an open, free-roam world? Well, with the number of side-quests and stuff a lot of RPGs have anyway, it might as well have an open world. That's the feel they're trying to emulate. Now, what if they offer a perfectly open world? a perfectly interactive world? How can they make the game linear still so that their story is told? Simple... actually make urget things urgent. A lot of RPGs have evil villians about to destroy the world... on the last step of their plan for world domination... or something... and yet the heroes have plenty of time to explore side-dungeons and do side-quests. Why not ACTUALLY have those things happen on time? Put a timer on the game. Sure, this means a game might be rushed. And some people may not like having a timer. Do you know how to fix it? Have it so that once you beat the game... you have the option to turn the timer off! It would take a little bit of extra coding and time, but isn't that what the space in a Blu-Ray disc or better compression is for? so more options and stuff can be introduced to it? Or how about instead of taking up 99% of the space with high-resolution textures and leaving the last 1% for the game, spend some extra space in actually making the game make sense, and actually having it be immersive, so that whether or not you have low textures or the highest of all time, it doesn't matter at all because your players are completely immersed in the game and begin to think and see like the main character(s). Isn't that the goal of a game? a book? a movie? a poem? a painting? Of course, each form I mentioned are different, but they try to achieve basically the same thing, even if they do involve different methods.

That... is my answer to the debate about the importance and value of graphics. It isn't really an answer, is it? Well get over it. Not many things in life are black and white situations. If gaming was like that... man, what a bore it would be.