Gameplay. Graphics only have to be decent or good quality, but which will you remember more, fancy graphics, or great gameplay? It's the reason Capcom and other old school companies can re-release games in those collections have people keep buying them. It's why people liked the dreamcast and the saturn, despite sega's shitty marketing. Also why games like Super Ghouls & Ghosts and FF1-6 get remade and redistributed to new systems.
Originally posted by Smasandian
I like it when gameplay and graphics are combined to create an unique experience, like Fear, Half Life 2 and Gears Of War.But if I rather choose gameplay over graphics I rather have a good game that plays well then a game just about the graphics.
Yeah the gameplay is important, but without the graphics it looses a bit of that experience. For instance when playing fear, half of the fun is watching how cool the slow motion effect is with the guns and grenades going off. If the graphics weren't as good in all of those scenes, than the game would lose a lot.
To me, there is no one thing more important regarding graphics and gameplay. If one is spectacular, and the other sucks, the entire experience is ruined. Both elements have to be present for it to be a good experience.
Some exceptions do exist of course. For instance, Mario on the NES, and the NES, and many of the old classics. The graphics are nothing, but the gameplay is there and that's what important.
In this generation though, you cannot have one without the other.
Playstatin 3 Tekken 6 Screenshot:
Now compare to...
Wii - Smash Brothers Screenshots
To be fair - I'm not completely certain if all of these are in-game screen shots or cut-scenes within both games.(Perhaps someone could confirm) But assuming that they are - there doesn't seem to be much of a difference(graphically) between Super Smash Bros when compared to Tekken 3.
EDIT: I know the hardcores are going to be real anal - and reem me about rim lighting(no puns intended..He..He..He) - framerate, and what not when comparing the two games above - but again, most of the graphical differences, will not be that big of a deal to the casual gamer(as opposed to the hardcore gamer).
As mentioned by others, one can only assume that the Wii will be pushed to it's graphical limits, providing rougly on par graphics with the PS3(Playstation 3) and 360(X-Box) first-Gen games, possibly even better graphics.
More Smash Bros for Wii..(I know I have too much free time on my hands..He..He..He)
and compare to..
Graphics for DOA3 on Original Xbox
The graphics for Smash Brothers, to me seem superior when compared to DOA(Dead or Alive) 3 on the XBox(original, not the 360) - which was graphically, one of the most beautiful games of its time. Anyone who makes a direct comparison to the Wii being the exact same(graphically) as the XBox(original) is either idiotic to say the least - or grossly misinformed at best.
Originally posted by IceJaw
That's idiocy right there ^To compare at all is stupid, it isn't about the graphics 😬
And DON'T be a noob and multi post !
Hmmm..twas never my intention to insinuate that graphics were the only thing. I am a firm believer that playability, sound, story, yada..yada are important(equally so in most cases).
Perhaps I wasn't clear about this with my initial argument..and for that I do apologize. Making comparisons is indeed valid - however, making unsubstantiated comparisons is what I have gripes about.
So let me further clarify my stance. Claims like -- "The Wii's graphics are only as good as the XBox(original) or barely better!!"(mostly ranted by Sony fanboys) Is a fallicious argument at worst - not well thought out argument at best(Others have pointed this out as well). Such comparisons are indeed relevant to a discussion, just come up with facts(like in-game frame rate comparisons, or like the screenshots I've provided) to base such comparisons on.
The odd thing is, I actually get a little antsy whewn people are TOO anti-graphic importance. People talk a lot about concentrating on pure gameplay- well, that's been done. it was called Tetris, and it is one of the most successful phenomena of all time, yet it is hardly the be all and end all of gaming.
Graphics, obviously, are of huge importance, but it is undoubted that the largest complaint that tends to get levelled against games these days is that it looks pretty but plays shite. You are are less likely to get the reverse comment, and indeed, tolerance for the reverse is part of what makes handhelds so popular.
Not to mention the enormous drag factor graphics have tended to had on game development time.
I love a pretty game as much as anyone, but I think Nintendo is giving a much needed balance. Despite all the complaints people have had about the importance of gameplay, most of the games market is still trumping about more power, more pixels, more realistic bump mapping, or what not.
Aside from that being very expensive, I am heartily glad that at least ONE major manufacturer is looking at the other angle. And I am absolutely 100% sure that Wii graphics will be good enough. It will ive and die on its games, of course, but then what doesn't?
Besides, I'll use my PC for high-end work.
Oh, and the Spectrum was one of the first generation of home computers. Home computers don't really exist any more, the PC replaced them, but I am sure more people here remember the glory days of the Amiga and ST< which is where the line died out.
Originally posted by IceJaw
That's idiocy right there ^To compare at all is stupid, it isn't about the graphics 😬
And DON'T be a noob and multi post !
Check the post times before you complain about someone double-posting. You can only edit for 15 minutes.
And yes, I again will say that the Wii's graphics are more than sufficient to hold it's own, and that the average person/casual gamer is not going to be able to really pick out the little nuances that set it behind the 360 or PS3 - or even care. It looks nice, it's pretty and shiny, and it is definitely good enough.
And the average person will care about two things: how much it costs, and if it's decently pretty.
I hold the same view as Ush, here. Both are important, but near-exclusive focus on graphics often leads to crap games, while the reverse is obviously not so.
Overall, I'd have to say what's most important to me is the fun factor. Something that can't be decided by the addition or absense of one factor, but how all the factors go together. Take Prey, for example: Great graphics, the accepted control scheme for PC FPS, but there was still something about it that was just lacking in fun for me.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
More Smash Bros for Wii..(I know I have too much free time on my hands..He..He..He)and compare to..
Graphics for DOA3 on Original Xbox
The graphics for Smash Brothers, to me seem superior when compared to DOA(Dead or Alive) 3 on the XBox(original, not the 360) - which was graphically, one of the most beautiful games of its time. Anyone who makes a direct comparison to the Wii being the exact same(graphically) as the XBox(original) is either idiotic to say the least - or grossly misinformed at best.
We need like an official screenshot thread, were people can post any cool screens they want of upcoming games.