This is a video game debate.

[Esmeralda]

Graphics can only get so and so good though. Once it's insanely detailed and blah blah blah I don't see how they could improve it anymore. So eventually all games will be equal when it comes to graphics

I never said photo-realistic

[Holkeye]

Good graphics doesn't mean photo-realistic.

[chewey]

Personally I don't enjoy the current trend in graphics. I'm not after photo-realistic graphics in my games but as it turns out, most people are.

I've recommend several games to my friends lately and most often their first question will be "What are the graphics like?"
These are Halo are WoW fanboys though, so I shouldn't expect their taste to be all that great.

Anyway, Wind Waker is the most pretty game I've ever played :3. I also really like the graphics featured in the Paper Mario series (not so much in PM64).

[Roph]

I liked when good graphics meant higher complexity meshes, sharper textures and nice lighting. Now it's all about BLUR THIS and BLOOM THAT. Go install the newest version of trackmania nations and laugh your ass off at the bloom.

Think of UT2004 (when it came out) as an example of what I'm talking about.

[Kathryn]

Some things look so real they cease to look real. My dad is obsessed with getting the best TV, the best HD, The best blu-rays...

And like i said before, it looks so real it doesn't.

As my cousin put it, "It shouldn't look more detailed then the person sitting beside you."

[Holkeye]

Remember when normal mapping was fresh, and every game looked like it was made out of play-doh? I'm glad we got over that phase.

[the_mantic]

Okay, I don't mean to get all "fanboy-y" but Metal Gear Solid 4 is not just a "good" game. I really am not trying to inflate the value of it, but it is an epic--strangely anti-violence--story about the events that shape us and what we fight for, and it covers everything from bioethics to patriotism. On top of that, its gameplay is extremely open-ended and challenging. I say this mostly because . . . I am obsessed with MGS games. That fact aside, I don't believe I love this game because I love Sony. I'd be the first to petition to get the game on 360(and hell, if they could do it, on Wii).

I own a PS3 because so far only five games have wowed me on the next gen, BioShock, Little Big Planet, Metal Gear Solid, Mass Effect, and Oblivion. With a computer and a Ps3, I can cover all of those. This is the hitch, though. "Any good game will be multi-platform" isn't entirely true, but often correct. It is more likely for a 360 game to also be on PC (windows and all that) than for a PS3 game to be on PC. So, for me (and I stress "for me," because I seem to come off caustic in all forum debates >_<), who's too clumsy to play action shooters and too "immersive" to play many games, a PS3 and my gaming PC suit me fine. 

I hope there are no more screaming Sony apologetics out there. I sure haven't heard from them in a while if there are. What seems to be happening now is a new breed of "anti-Sony-apologetics", 360 fans who specifically knock Sony's work.

But hey, where would the world be without conflict? Play an MGS and wonder.

[Holkeye]

Metal Gear Solid 4 was the best movie I've ever played. But seriously, compared to the other 3, it was my least favorite. There were parts of it that were excellent, though. For example, going back to Shadow Moses was the best part of the game. The way that they relayed the obsolescence theme in a way that paralleled not only Snake and video games in general, but also the player, made for a melancholic and nostalgic section. I'll never forget how seeing the camera rust and fall off the wall made me actively think about who I was when I was playing the first MGS. On the other hand, there were sections of the game that were simply a chore to play through, and when I finally made it to the next plot exposition, I was forced to sit and watch a movie for nearly an hour. That would be unacceptable if it were any other director, in any other franchise.

About the PS3, I don't think it's a bad system. In fact, none of the consoles are bad. People who hold one console above the rest are just feeding the self-immolating hype cycle. If you're really a gamer, then it shouldn't matter what system a game comes on, as long as you have fun playing it.

[the_mantic]

I'm with ya; Hideo established the game as a "playable movie" once the first Solid game came out, allowing you to play as the credits rolled and displaying the voice actors name beneath each character's name. I might be crazy, but I enjoy every bit of gameplay with the exception of the shadowing chapter in East Europe, and even then only the second time through. And I did enjoy it more than 2 and more than the original Metal Gears, but I suppose this is a deviation from the subject.

[Smish]

I bought A sony 3 because I havent had any problems with any other sony products that I own.
I got scared off off by the whole "red rings of death" and reading numerous claims of people returning them for repairs or the extremely appauling windows vista. to me build quality is everything and it seems that sony took care with ps3 as with all their products (at least the ones that I bought. unlike microsoft which seemingly did a rush job with the 360 just to get it out quickly and make a cheap buck.

as far as I see it, its just like comparing a porsche 911 to a ford mustang gt. both do the same thing. but the porsche is more refined, better built and thus more expensive.

[Kathryn]

Well, my xbox did do the white ring and red rings of death thing, but after you get over that, it's actually quite a good system :3.

I am happy to report i have finally paid up (for little big planet's sake) and i am very happy with LBP. I'm going for Prince of Persia next.

Overall i am feeling very :3 right now. I don't even mind going to do the papers...

which i should be doing right now, actually 

[finalconflict]

Graphics are a huge part of a game but to me the gameplay is one of the most important qualities of a game.
You go back to the old Nintendo 64 games whose graphics are pretty bad compared to games we have today, and they're still great games because the gameplay is simply amazing.
The PS3 in my opinion was a complete failure. The Wii has some good games and motion sensing controllers are great however some games just aren't fit for the Wii.
The new gen consoles have improved on features and graphics but in my opinion the games as well as reliability has gone downhill.
I've had my Gamecube and Xbox for 7 years and they still work perfectly. My Nintendo 64 is 10 years old and there isn't a single thing wrong with it.
My friend's 360 lasted about 6 months.

[ahref]

Now it's all about BLUR THIS and BLOOM THAT.

I hate bloom Makes my screen look dirty.

The other thing to think about is the fact that by increasing the graphics of a game you increase its size. It is rare to find a new game out in shops that isn't going to suck up 5gbs of your hard drive. 1GB is the lowest i think you'll see.

If a game has 5GBs of gameplay(maps,cutscenes,events) thats fine but 5GBs of models and textures is just a stupid waste of space on my hard drive.

[Kathryn]

...

this is

old

...

so ooooollld ;-;

[modern algebra]

Oh to be 14 again, when 2 and a half months was a long time 

[Kathryn]

Dammit, Modern, it doesn't matter anymore. It's been like an hour, I'm already over it. Slowbie.

[spoiler]

although I am kind of wondering if that's necessary. My , I mean.
[/spoiler]

[modern algebra]

Probably not.

[ahref]

its not old if its on the first page

[Irock]

Now it's all about BLUR THIS and BLOOM THAT.

I hate bloom Makes my screen look dirty.

The other thing to think about is the fact that by increasing the graphics of a game you increase its size. It is rare to find a new game out in shops that isn't going to suck up 5gbs of your hard drive. 1GB is the lowest i think you'll see.

If a game has 5GBs of gameplay(maps,cutscenes,events) thats fine but 5GBs of models and textures is just a stupid waste of space on my hard drive.

Do you realize how cheap hard drives are?

[Roph]

Now it's all about BLUR THIS and BLOOM THAT.

I hate bloom Makes my screen look dirty.

The other thing to think about is the fact that by increasing the graphics of a game you increase its size. It is rare to find a new game out in shops that isn't going to suck up 5gbs of your hard drive. 1GB is the lowest i think you'll see.

If a game has 5GBs of gameplay(maps,cutscenes,events) thats fine but 5GBs of models and textures is just a stupid waste of space on my hard drive.

Do you realize how cheap hard drives are?

It shouldn't excuse shitty efficiency. I don't mind a game taking up a few gigabytes if it has good reason to, but look at F.E.A.R. 2; that beast comes on 3 DVDs and takes up around FOURTEEN GIGABYTES.

[Kokowam]

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.

I agree. There's so many cross-platform games, it makes me wonder if the need for multiple consoles is even necessary. It's all a marketing scam. >_>

If you're really a gamer, then it shouldn't matter what system a game comes on, as long as you have fun playing it.

Imo, this is truly iff (not a typo) you are either a die-hard gamer or you just have a hell lot of money; more than you care to have.

[Dwarra?]

I have all 3 consoles, and l used to only play my 360 and leave the others collecting dust. But recently I've brought out my wii for Brawl and Virtual Console, and my PS3 for Uncharted and Little Big Planet.

I can honestly say Uncharted and Little Big Planet are both better than any game on 360, and my favorite game of all time is No More Heroes on the Wii. 360 started off good, but now all of it's exclusives are pretty lackluster.

[Keranu]

Graphics can have great importance in how they compliment the gameplay (and on the contrary, hurt the gameplay, in some cases). It's like you can either have a cheap little explosion effect or you can have something big and powerful looking. Which of these is going to engage you more in the fast paced action of the gameplay? Ultimately the gameplay counts most of course, but the other spices and condiments of game development have their place too.

Actually for me personally, it's the atmosphere that's most important. There are many bad games I love soley for their atmosphere (like FFVII: I'm NOT saying it was a bad game by any means, but it did have some technical gameplay problems), yet there are great games that had little impact on me because they gave me no sense of atmosphere (Super Mario Galaxy is a good example of this).

[Tezuka]

Now it's all about BLUR THIS and BLOOM THAT.

I hate bloom Makes my screen look dirty.

The other thing to think about is the fact that by increasing the graphics of a game you increase its size. It is rare to find a new game out in shops that isn't going to suck up 5gbs of your hard drive. 1GB is the lowest i think you'll see.

If a game has 5GBs of gameplay(maps,cutscenes,events) thats fine but 5GBs of models and textures is just a stupid waste of space on my hard drive.

Do you realize how cheap hard drives are?

It shouldn't excuse shitty efficiency. I don't mind a game taking up a few gigabytes if it has good reason to, but look at F.E.A.R. 2; that beast comes on 3 DVDs and takes up around FOURTEEN GIGABYTES.