This is a video game debate.

Alright. This is an elitist debate. I'd like to think it belongs here, and not video games. Actually, it probably does belong in video games. But still.

This begins with a story: My dad recently got a ps3. Now my opinion of the ps3 is summed up in this:

-No ps2 support. Boo!
-Well, square enix has left sony, and that's the only reason i ever really used the ps2.
-Anything good is cross-platformed.
-Only good game i can think of for the ps3 that isn't cross-platformed is Little Big Planet
-Any other decent games are relatively generic and forgettable
-And for all of that, it's like, $500 or maybe even more. I might have approved otherwise.

So i ask him, we already have a blu-ray player, and we can probably live without Little Big Planet, and what the fuck these games that you got, and that documentary too, they look like absolute shit(when it comes to entertainment), so WHY?!

And he tells me: Because the graphics are cool.

And then WE get into this gigantic debate about whether cool graphics outweigh gameplay value, and me being me i say FUCK NO because, well, what's the point of a game if it isn't any fun? And during this debate he told me things. Like, "I've actually bought games just because they look good." Yet again, my opinion: What is the point of wasting precious money (in large amounts, by the way. You all know how expensive games are, especially after a new console -_o) on graphics? If you want to see how pretty it all is, can't you go to the EB games and watch it there?

So, what do you think? Does a game's graphics outweigh any terrible gameplay?

Graphics do not equal a good game. Hell, lots of great looking games play like absolute crap. And because of that, they fail.

That's about all I have to say on that subject.

Side subject:

we can probably live without Little Big Planet

BLASPHEMY. Seriously, that is an excellent game. If you have a PS3, you're just hurting yourself for not getting it.

It pretty much all boils down to the person not the game itself when it comes to graphics vs game play debates, because after all a game is only as good as the person wants it to be.

Some people like pretty stuff while others prefer good game play in their games.

If this section were still titled Intelligent Debate, I would move it to Video Games, but I think this topic can fit into Elitist Debate.

Really though, you're on a forum for 2D Game Making Platforms ~ people who actually want to make games that look like they're from the 90s. Graphics aren't going to be a big issue for many, I wouldn't think.

My own opinion is essentially:

Bad graphics can't make a good game worse
Good graphics can't make a bad game better
Good graphics can make a good game better

What are you talking about? Most people in the RPG Maker community judge projects by the mapping.

Why does ff12 suck cause i didn't think it did.

-No ps2 support. Boo!

do you mean PS1 support?
I thought you could play PS2 on it.

-Well, square enix has left sony, and that's the only reason i ever really used the ps2.

FFXIII is still hitting PS3 .-.

-Anything good is cross-platformed.

just about everything good nowadays is cross-platformed

-Only good game i can think of for the ps3 that isn't cross-platformed is Little Big Planet

Movie Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots

-Any other decent games are relatively generic and forgettable

same for all the systems

-And for all of that, it's like, $500 or maybe even more. I might have approved otherwise.

your dad should have waited, it's gonna drop to $350.
also, I can prove that a PS3 costs less than a full Xbox 360 package.

And he tells me: Because the graphics are cool.

that's a terrible reason to buy a game or a system.  I agree wtih you.

Why is there suddenly something wrong with a game being cross platform? Do you just NEED to have an exclusive?

Why is there suddenly something wrong with a game being cross platform? Do you just NEED to have an exclusive?

yeah I don't understand that either.

What are you talking about? Most people in the RPG Maker community judge projects by the mapping.

Yeah, well mapping isn't about graphics so much as it is about arrangement. It has very little to do with how the resources look, it has to do with how they are used and it's technical critique, not so much graphical critique. Technically, yeah, that's graphics, but there's a pretty clear distinction between that and what is being referred to in this topic.


And as far as the cross-platform question goes, I think it does matter when choosing a console. Given a choice between systems A and B, where 10 good games are on both platforms, but A has only 5 exclusive good games while B has 20 exclusive good games, then I would choose B because it has 30 good games while A only has 15.

Well I've got all consoles, and from what I can tell. Most PS3 games are geared towards the hardcore, modern, shoot and kill type gamers. And to those gamers, EVERYTHING is about graphics and framerate. All FPS games feel exactly the same, I haven't played an FPS game that felt unique and absolute fun since Perfect Dark.

I apparently own all the "best" games (except Valkyrie chronicles which i might pick up) in the entire PS3 library, and they consist of Metal gear solid 4, Resistance 2, and LBP. Everything else is multiplatform. PS3 fanboys inflate the quality of these games, and if they were in any other console they would just be "good".

I think sony's game plan was just a big failure, considering they took out the only good things on the new PS3s (I have an old one with PS2 support and 4 USB ports). I don't understand why they couldn't sell both versions of it. Anyways enough about the PS3.

In my opinion, do not ever rate a game based on graphics compared to other consoles.
Instead you should base it on how well the graphics are used in the given hardware. Then have a separate evaluation on gameplay, story, and sound. Graphics are important, presentation is key, but it isn't everything. It could be a great game, but if it has terrible graphics people still won't play it. Why? Because it looks terrible. Animations should be fluid, considering the hardware they're working on. If they have good graphics along with good gameplay, effort is definitely shown. As players, we have to treat gameplay and graphics as equal elements of a good game.

I think sony's game plan was just a big failure, considering they took out the only good things on the new PS3s (I have an old one with PS2 support and 4 USB ports). I don't understand why they couldn't sell both versions of it. Anyways enough about the PS3.

wait.
they removed PS2 support?
are they THAT retarded?

Here comes Holk, to set you all straight.

PS3 has PS2 capability, but it depends on which model you bought.

The 80GB plays almost all PS2 games, but the 60GB and 20GB versions have the actual PS2 processor hardware in it. The 40GB is the only one that cannot play PS1 or PS2 games.

Now, as far as exclusives go, it may not seem like a big deal to have no exclusives, but it actually is. When a company chooses to make a system-exclusive, they make the game specifically for that system's hardware, exploiting all of the special things that said system can do. If every game is a cross-platform, that seriously limits what a developer can feature in their game.

So yes, system exclusives are important.

The 40GB is the only one that cannot play PS1 or PS2 games.

Actually the newest 2008, 80G and 160G models cannot play PS2 games on it as well. The also don't have any flash card readers, or SACD support. These models are in current production, and since kitkat got these new ones, she cannot play them. The only old model that did not play ps2/ps1 games were the 40G models from 2007. Which were designed to be the cheaper models.
They "price dropped" again in 2008, which is why they ruined the PS3.

Gameplay > Graphics
I am a sony fanboy, but I do admit that xbox 360 has more quality games than PS3 does right now.
And by the way, you forgot ratchet and clank and gran turismo
No, need for speed is not as good as gran turismo, nor is project gotham

It's like they say, the real beauty is within. Just like in humans, we shouldn't measure everything with external beauty

Same with games, graphics aren't all.





And if you got it and are looking for a good game, try MGS4, Prince Of Persia or Burnout Paradise.
Though 2/3 of those are on the pc ;-;

Consoles and computers can't be compared
Computer's will always win
Let's keep it to consoles

Consoles and computers can't be compared
Computer's will always win
Let's keep it to consoles

consoles are computers.

The new Prince of Persia is not a good game. It's a good looking game, but it is not a good game.

The game Retro Game Challenges is a good game. It has Atari graphics, and it's a really good game.

I think sony's game plan was just a big failure, considering they took out the only good things on the new PS3s (I have an old one with PS2 support and 4 USB ports). I don't understand why they couldn't sell both versions of it. Anyways enough about the PS3.

wait.
they removed PS2 support?
are they THAT retarded?

Yes, yes they are.

Well I've got all consoles, and from what I can tell. Most PS3 games are geared towards the hardcore, modern, shoot and kill type gamers. And to those gamers, EVERYTHING is about graphics and framerate. All FPS games feel exactly the same, I haven't played an FPS game that felt unique and absolute fun since Perfect Dark.

I apparently own all the "best" games (except Valkyrie chronicles which i might pick up) in the entire PS3 library, and they consist of Metal gear solid 4, Resistance 2, and LBP. Everything else is multiplatform. PS3 fanboys inflate the quality of these games, and if they were in any other console they would just be "good".

I think sony's game plan was just a big failure, considering they took out the only good things on the new PS3s (I have an old one with PS2 support and 4 USB ports). I don't understand why they couldn't sell both versions of it. Anyways enough about the PS3.

In my opinion, do not ever rate a game based on graphics compared to other consoles.
Instead you should base it on how well the graphics are used in the given hardware. Then have a separate evaluation on gameplay, story, and sound. Graphics are important, presentation is key, but it isn't everything. It could be a great game, but if it has terrible graphics people still won't play it. Why? Because it looks terrible. Animations should be fluid, considering the hardware they're working on. If they have good graphics along with good gameplay, effort is definitely shown. As players, we have to treat gameplay and graphics as equal elements of a good game.

:3

Here comes Holk, to set you all straight.

PS3 has PS2 capability, but it depends on which model you bought.

The 80GB plays almost all PS2 games, but the 60GB and 20GB versions have the actual PS2 processor hardware in it. The 40GB is the only one that cannot play PS1 or PS2 games.

Now, as far as exclusives go, it may not seem like a big deal to have no exclusives, but it actually is. When a company chooses to make a system-exclusive, they make the game specifically for that system's hardware, exploiting all of the special things that said system can do. If every game is a cross-platform, that seriously limits what a developer can feature in their game.

So yes, system exclusives are important.

HOLK SPEAKS TRUTH. Except for that Ps2 capability thing. That is no longer true, as stated before 

Consoles and computers can't be compared
Computer's will always win
Let's keep it to consoles

Get out > : (

Why is there suddenly something wrong with a game being cross platform? Do you just NEED to have an exclusive?

yeah I don't understand that either.

Alright, i just meant there is no reason to drop 500 dollars for a system when you can buy some of these games for platforms we already have.

It's like they say, the real beauty is within. Just like in humans, we shouldn't measure everything with external beauty

Same with games, graphics aren't all.

I love you ;__________;

The only reason i really don't like the ps3 is that i only ever play square-enix games for the whole playstation system really, and i'm angry because i can't play KHII or KHI for that matter. I have to go to my friends house to do such things. And now that we have a ps3, I can't do such things. Except for the ps1 capabilities. If that's even included still 

I just want my final fantasy goddammit ;__________________________________________________;

EDIT: And i forgot Ratchet and Clank . ;______________________________________________________________________;

The new Prince of Persia is not a good game. It's a good looking game, but it is not a good game.

I find it good but, everyone has their opinions.






Well, I deleted it because it lags and I need a better processor etc so, i'll know better when I get one =3
ilu2=3

Alright, i just meant there is no reason to drop 500 dollars for a system when you can buy some of these games for platforms we already have.

exclusives are generally franchises, which I've found to totally wear out and die after an installment or two, so I don't really consider that much.

and I'd never drop $500 for a system, regardless of what is on it.

I have an Xbox. Not a 360, and I feel it's fine. I've no desire for a better console really, the games are great on the Xbox, and the graphics aren't distracting.

I also have a PS1 sitting up in my room, and although the graphics on that suck by nowadays standards, back then they were almighty. In 10 years time the graphics on a PS3 will be massively outdated.

So basically, my opinion is, a memorable game is not based on graphics, but on story and gameplay. The graphics themselves will become outdated someday, so clearly are not all that important.*

*By my logic, graphics are unimportant because graphics keep improving. A bit of a logic bug there