4 ms·

Or maybe it isn't graphics that make the game but rather the gameplay itself?

jakebasile 10y ago
Mostly true, but improved graphical fidelity can add to the immersion and experience. But also, compute power doesn't mean solely graphical compute - more power means more advanced AI, faster menus, higher maximum players in multiplayer, and so on.
- pimeys 10y ago
  I'm nowadays a PC-gamer myself owning a hefty computer and I love beautiful games like Witcher 3. But I still think Nintendo has some of the best games ever made on their consoles. Take a look into Super Mario Galaxy series, how they just work, are nice to navigate and play, how you can play the games over and over again and have fun even years after their release. Sure they don't have the fastest hardware, but what they can do with it is just amazing.
  - greendragon 10y ago
    I played through the two Galaxy games, the second one I think twice since you get Luigi after the first run... Maybe 8 months ago I was playing through Resident Evil 4 on the Wii to keep myself from buying the PC version, and when I finished I booted up SMG2 again to show a friend, and I was struck by how terrible it has aged... If I do play it again it'll be on the Dolphin Emulator. (4k 60hz SMG2 actually looks really nice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO8H5F1tCjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO8H5F1tCjg) On the other hand I have hundreds of games on Steam I need to play but sometimes when I just want some random fun for a while I'll dig out some old SNES games (or launch an emulator). No one denies you can make incredible games on weak hardware, but you can't make certain types of incredible games without powerful hardware. And in any case you can always make some really crappy games. I can't even seriously take the "but Nintendo does good gameplay and design even if their hardware sucks" rationalization anymore. With the possible exception of Splatoon (haven't played it), the other Wii U titles I have played at a friend's (I don't own the console) have, despite raising my expectations, systematically disappointed me in some major way due precisely to the gameplay, not the graphics: Super Mario 3D World, Star Fox Zero (that one hurt the most), Pikmin 3 (actually not so bad but no replay value), Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting. The next Zelda game is their last chance for me and every gameplay demo I've seen has set my expectations real low.
    - gramstrong 10y ago
      What about 3D World 'systematically disappointed you' in a 'major way'?
      - greendragon 10y ago
        In short, the level design. I felt the hints of what annoyed me when I was playing the two Galaxy games, and this video really summed up what I find terribly wrong (as opposed to brilliant) with the design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBmIkEvEBtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBmIkEvEBtA It's lazy design. There are other complaints (even other specific issues with the level design I experienced) but that's the big one, it's so bad I don't want to play it ever again, let alone finish it.
- swasheck 10y ago
  While I agree with you, it's also possible to flip the argument that improved graphical fidelity as the immersive experience may cover the tendency to rehash the same story lines and action in a different setting.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  > graphical fidelity can add to the immersion and experience Does it? Do you think people playing Doom this year have a more immersive experience than I had playing Doom on my 486? A better experience?
- flukus 10y ago
  It actually does the opposite for me. Back when every polygon was precious I new what to look at, nowadays that's so much distracting stuff on screen I get lost.

Mostly true, but improved graphical fidelity can add to the immersion and experience. But also, compute power doesn't mean solely graphical compute - more power means more advanced AI, faster menus, higher maximum players in multiplayer, and so on.

pimeys 10y ago
I'm nowadays a PC-gamer myself owning a hefty computer and I love beautiful games like Witcher 3. But I still think Nintendo has some of the best games ever made on their consoles. Take a look into Super Mario Galaxy series, how they just work, are nice to navigate and play, how you can play the games over and over again and have fun even years after their release. Sure they don't have the fastest hardware, but what they can do with it is just amazing.
- greendragon 10y ago
  I played through the two Galaxy games, the second one I think twice since you get Luigi after the first run... Maybe 8 months ago I was playing through Resident Evil 4 on the Wii to keep myself from buying the PC version, and when I finished I booted up SMG2 again to show a friend, and I was struck by how terrible it has aged... If I do play it again it'll be on the Dolphin Emulator. (4k 60hz SMG2 actually looks really nice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO8H5F1tCjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO8H5F1tCjg) On the other hand I have hundreds of games on Steam I need to play but sometimes when I just want some random fun for a while I'll dig out some old SNES games (or launch an emulator). No one denies you can make incredible games on weak hardware, but you can't make certain types of incredible games without powerful hardware. And in any case you can always make some really crappy games. I can't even seriously take the "but Nintendo does good gameplay and design even if their hardware sucks" rationalization anymore. With the possible exception of Splatoon (haven't played it), the other Wii U titles I have played at a friend's (I don't own the console) have, despite raising my expectations, systematically disappointed me in some major way due precisely to the gameplay, not the graphics: Super Mario 3D World, Star Fox Zero (that one hurt the most), Pikmin 3 (actually not so bad but no replay value), Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting. The next Zelda game is their last chance for me and every gameplay demo I've seen has set my expectations real low.
  - gramstrong 10y ago
    What about 3D World 'systematically disappointed you' in a 'major way'?
    - greendragon 10y ago
      In short, the level design. I felt the hints of what annoyed me when I was playing the two Galaxy games, and this video really summed up what I find terribly wrong (as opposed to brilliant) with the design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBmIkEvEBtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBmIkEvEBtA It's lazy design. There are other complaints (even other specific issues with the level design I experienced) but that's the big one, it's so bad I don't want to play it ever again, let alone finish it.
swasheck 10y ago
While I agree with you, it's also possible to flip the argument that improved graphical fidelity as the immersive experience may cover the tendency to rehash the same story lines and action in a different setting.
erikpukinskis 10y ago
> graphical fidelity can add to the immersion and experience Does it? Do you think people playing Doom this year have a more immersive experience than I had playing Doom on my 486? A better experience?
flukus 10y ago
It actually does the opposite for me. Back when every polygon was precious I new what to look at, nowadays that's so much distracting stuff on screen I get lost.