Don't judge a book by it's cover., A rant on graphics in games.

OK, so first of all: I have nothing against graphics, if they're used well. A game which looks good and plays good is alright in my book. But a lot of "games" only sell well because of how they look. Plus, what really drives me mad are people who look at a game once and drop it because it looks bad. So, as a publicly-asked question to those people...

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

You don't play games for pretty pictures! Tetris for the Game Boy! The best-looking thing was the title screen! And no-one gave a damn, because it was a fun game! Pac-Man! Still played by people worldwide! And the main character is a faceless yellow circle!

PlayStation 3. 600 Euros? DAMN! I could buy a DVD player and a stack of films for that cash, and end up with roughly the same experience!

XBox 360. The grey area between the black PS3 and the white Wii. But it keeps swerving towards the former too often. Dead or Alive XTreme 2, anybody? Yeah, there's pretty girls in bikinis playing beach sports. That's not a game, it's a softcore hentai film.

Wii. Wario Ware, and VC classics to prove my point... We have gameplay, we have innovation, and the graphics aren't the major selling point. Microsoft, Sony, you could learn a lot from the Jolly Japanese Giant.

PSP: What's funny is the only good games for this are Nintendo games that people illegally emulate on this. Plus, long console is loooooong. And discs? On a handheld? Bad idea, Sony.

DS: Oh man this proves the point of this rant like no other. There's games for everyone from 5 to 95. The graphics aren't as good as the PSP's, yet more people go for this instead. Free online service, plenty of great games, and it actually fits in your pocket like a handheld's supposed to.

Now, I know you graphic wh**es can't read this, what with your heads being firmly lodged up your assholes and all, but listen here: If graphics are all you care about, take that console back to the store and get a DVD player instead.

Tetris and Pacman can't be in this argument because while they were fun, they were also on par with the graphics of that era.

It's true. I only play games for innovations.

Unless that the graphics are like driver 2.

Well yeah, there is a reason to have good graphics. The graphics in the game is the selling point of most games. In order to succeed in the video game industry, one has to grab the most attention by adding much detail into their games. Better graphics throughout the years often give some customers a sense that they are getting closer to realism (Which makes no sense, and is absolutely redundant, but the feeling does exist) and others a chance to show off their impressive-looking games to their friends. You want people who adore great graphics to watch a DVD. However, it is not interactive; a realistic video game that allows you to control the outcome is what they want to play. They love the feeling to be holding a good looking video game, like an amulet.

Unfourtenantly, There is a ruse behind this; most games offer great graphics but piss poor gameplay. A lot of players are often tempted to get a game just because it has great graphics. The only reason a company exists is to make money from people and provide "good" services in return. The evil between certain video game industries is the urge to make money, and an negligence on good gameplay over good graphics is a temptation that many video game companies have. Especially in today's world, where powerhouses like the PS3 and XBOX360 can show (or closely show) realism. Games that are meant for attracting graphics-hungry customers are inevitable.

People don't care about the gameplay. Others do. It's a two-sided no-man's land, and we can't really dictate what people can like or dislike. You have a good point, but it won't give the two sides a justifying treaty.

This post has been edited by Bobafett X on Apr 3 2007, 11:23 AM

You act like the 360 and PS3 offer no good games at all, personally, I think the 360 is the best system of them all because the games last me far longer than Wii games and the PS3 has only 2 games I want for it.

Its not about the cover, its about the content! Microsoft makes games different than those Nintendo make, and you just dislike the MS games. Its not about graphics at all, here. Your just being a silly Nintendo fanboy, and thats quite annoying.

I don't get this sudden "LOLZ GRAPHIX R DA BEST" way of thinking at all. The SNES, N64 and GameCube could produce better graphics then their competetors and people still bought other consoles instead.

For example the PS3 - People are only buying it because of it's graphic capabilities (And because "Playstation"), but the Dreamcast's games out-classed the PS2's launch titles in graphics and the N64 was a whole 32 bits away from the PS1, but it didn't stop either Playstations from coming top of their respective console generations.

In other words, this arguement about graphical capabilities means nothing, and people are only using it as an excuse because of the advertising that's gone into the graphics (Because lets face it, aside from a few internet features, that's the only thing separating this generation from the last generation). The real thing that's gaining the attention is the name. Both the Xbox and Playstation have well-known companies backing them. Nintendo, despite being well known, are only well known for making stuff like Mario and the handheld market (Aka "Stuff for the kids", rather than the "older generation"). The older gamers have been pushed into thinking that "adult", more graphical games are the way forward, and Nintendo offers very little of these - that's the only thing that's keeping Wii sales down. That, and because people that have been with Sony for 10 years are probably going to stick with Sony.

I would have agreed with this except for your tendency to say everything Nintendo did was the best, which is blatantly untrue

Final Fantasy has vastly improved over the years, and my brother has... 10 or 12. I can't remember which one, but it looks pretty damn fine.

360 has popular games such as Oblivion, Dead Rising, Fable 2... and also has that minor thing... what was that? Multiplayer arcade online? Oh yeah!

... but the PS3 can die.

And then there's Elder Scrolls Oblivion, with 100s of hours of content to be played with tons of replay value. Or Gears of War, tons of fun to play with friends, especially online. Or Crackdown, which may be a GTA rip off (Even though it's made by the original creator), still tons of fun. You act like if something has good graphics it's automatically bad, in a way you're kinda right, the Gamecube had the best graphics last year and it was the worst console of them all!

You also fail to mention how Wii games lack replay value and are ridiculously short, while most 360 games have tons of replay value and keep me coming back for weeks and weeks. I STILL play Oblivion, because it upgrades itself with new content every month or two, while Wii games are finished in a week and I never go back. Not that the Wii is bad, but so far it's games have been way too short and not enough of them are geared towards hardcore gamers.

This post has been edited by Mr. T on Apr 3 2007, 12:10 PM

i have a gamecube and a ps2 and i do not regret lacking an x-box

That's because the X-Box had very few good games, the PS2 was the best of all 3 in my opinion.

I don't judge the game by it's looks, unless it's horribly ugly.

according to san andreas, champions of norrath, final fantasy xii, and true crime: new york, you may be right

grand theft auto san andreas' graphics aren't amazing at all but the game is so fun until you do everything possible. Well its still fun to go on a mindless rampage from time to time ...

Graphics aren't everything, they're like icing on the cake. If you have it, well good. If you don't, well so what.

The Wii *could* try a little harder though, I think that more games should try a little harder on graphics, I mean super mario galaxy and smash bros brawl look excellent and there hasn't been a game yet (that I've played, besides Sonic Wild Fire) that has graphics that good. Now I don't mind or anything, I'm just saying the wii has the capability, might as well use it from time to time. In any case I love the wii, don't get me wrong I play mine all the time.

San Andreas had too much gangsta crap in it D:

Not a bad game though, the X-Box did have some good games though. Morrowind, Halo, Fable, etc. PS2 just had more, MGS series, Jak series, God of War, etc.

96% of your post is right, except for everything that biases towards Nintendo.

If you're gonna buy a console you should buy the one that has the best games, because that's what you buy a console for. So far I'll stick with the Wii because it's the cheapest, and we're gonna get bombarded with awesome games this year.

So whoever puts a biased argument towards Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo is an idiot. Want proof? I have a DS, because gameswise DS > PSP. I wanted a PS2 but I couldn't afford it, so I bought a cheaper Gamecube instead (also because it came with 14 games). Back in the polygon-graphics era I had a PSX. Why? Because it had better games. Period.

I agree. Most kids my age don't beleive me aboutgameplay being better until I say this:

What would you rather have,the greatest graphics in the world on a slow as hell game?Or have the worst graphics on the best game ever?

YES, WE HAVEN'T HEARD THIS ENOUGH

this can be summed up in one word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luddite&x=0&y=0

or to put it better: you people are selectively choosing when to acknowledge that people play games for their own reasons

This post has been edited by Quicky on Apr 3 2007, 01:09 PM

once again quicky wins this topic with his quirky logic

Um, I bought my 360 for games, not to drool over their graphics. I play fun games with bad graphics on a regular basis.