Graphics whores? It's a two-way street

[FRuMMaGe]

Just felt like writing a little post on the endless supply of Wii owners who take it on themselves to cling with such piousness to the notion that all games with good graphics inherently lack depth or fun game-play.

I refer you to the encapsulation of this in the following thread, aptly named "OMG This is so freakin annoying!"

http://www.wiichat.com/lounge/46117-omg-so-freakin-annoying.html

Im so annoyed and I know this is the millionth thread about it but I just want to stress my point! My friend is anoyying now because all he cares about in a game is the graphics! Im so tired of graphics whores. They are so annoying I mean, these days its all about graphics! Where has the real fun gone? Listen to this retarded statement I heard from someone:

"Oh my god, Bioshock has the best graphics ever. It is like 1000x times better than Super Mario Galaxy. It totally deserves game of the year from X-play. Super Mario Galaxy would've never gotten it because the graphics on it suck."

Again, where has the real fun gone? I really want to stress my point:

As you can see, this person has probably never played Bioshock, but because it has amazing graphics they are making several (wrong) assumptions:
> The game is NOT fun to play.
> The game has poor controls and/or game-play.
> Everyone who likes the game is a "graphics-whore".

This is a very widespread state of mind across most of this forum and it really ticks me off when I hear amazing games such as Halo 3 and Bioshock having their great graphics used as a negative point.

I am sure I am not alone in this.

EDIT: Before some people start a barrage of poorly worded "ZOMG! U R T3H GR4FICKS HORE!" posts, I would like to stress that I enjoy my Wii more than my Xbox 360.

 

[Frogger]

Yeah, but like, the Wii's still better!

Well, I'm not one for venturing on other consoles, but the PS3 is in my house, so I just watch my cousins fail miserably at the Simpsons. But, even that has absolutely stunning graphics, the Wii's graphics do make me want to stab myself in the eyes, still, I prefer the console for a number of reasons.

See the problem is, it's a battle of opinions, and you're all too stubborn and bias.

 

[Sterculius]

i think rather than pointing the finger at one another making accusations (albeit pointless ones)...they need to realize they can't generalize anything. Not every game with good graphics is fun, not every game with poor graphics is fun. It's all about who has the time, skills and money to do one or the other or both.

Sure Mario Galaxy is no Crysis in terms of graphics, but it's fun as hell. But that doesn't automatically mean every game with poor graphics on the Wii is a winner. There's countless titles showing up in the discount bin for a reason, cuz they suck.

And conversely, just because a game has phenomenal graphics, doesn't mean the developers can't forge out good gameplay to go with it. There's God of War 2 (phenomal graphics for a last gen console), and Devil May Cry 4 on the way, and so on...

People need to grow up and realize each game is unique and there's absolutely no way to generalize and be correct all the time.

So ya, both sides need to stop.

 

[FRuMMaGe]

Yeah, but like, the Wii's still better!

Well, I'm not one for venturing on other consoles, but the PS3 is in my house, so I just watch my cousins fail miserably at the Simpsons. But, even that has absolutely stunning graphics, the Wii's graphics do make me want to stab myself in the eyes, still, I prefer the console for a number of reasons.

See the problem is, it's a battle of opinions, and you're all too stubborn and bias.

I prefer the Wii as well. I'm just trying to explain that I don't think games are automatically bad as soon as they surpass a certain graphical level :lol:

 

[Frogger]

I prefer the Wii as well. I'm just trying to explain that I don't think games are automatically bad as soon as they surpass a certain graphical level :lol:

Oh no, good quality! The game must be awful!

It's just a matter of genres appealling to different audiences, and there's a lot of them people would consider fun. I mean, I sit there on Mario Galaxy and my cousin turns it off to play Mario Sonic Olympic tripe thing, which is the most horrendous game I own currently, but he's only five. Still, if it helps the market nobody cares, there's no way of classifying it.

Plus, Frummage, I actually take your opinion seeing as you actually play very well.

 

[FRuMMaGe]

Oh no, good quality! The game must be awful!

It's just a matter of genres appealling to different audiences, and there's a lot of them people would consider fun. I mean, I sit there on Mario Galaxy and my cousin turns it off to play Mario Sonic Olympic tripe thing, which is the most horrendous game I own currently, but he's only five. Still, if it helps the market nobody cares, there's no way of classifying it.

Plus, Frummage, I actually take your opinion seeing as you actually play very well.

Ahh yes. Damn you and your Bob-ombs :lol:

 

[Squall7]

Just felt like writing a little post on the endless supply of Wii owners who take it on themselves to cling with such piousness to the notion that all games with good graphics inherently lack depth or fun game-play.

I refer you to the encapsulation of this in the following thread, aptly named "OMG This is so freakin annoying!"

http://www.wiichat.com/lounge/46117-omg-so-freakin-annoying.html

As you can see, this person has probably never played Bioshock, but because it has amazing graphics they are making several (wrong) assumptions:
> The game is NOT fun to play.
> The game has poor controls and/or game-play.
> Everyone who likes the game is a "graphics-whore".

This is a very widespread state of mind across most of this forum and it really ticks me off when I hear amazing games such as Halo 3 and Bioshock having their great graphics used as a negative point.

I am sure I am not alone in this.

EDIT: Before some people start a barrage of poorly worded "ZOMG! U R T3H GR4FICKS HORE!" posts, I would like to stress that I enjoy my Wii more than my Xbox 360.

Wow. Not sure how many people actually use that flawed arguement (that graphics = bad game).

Personally, to me it's a case of "graphics don't decide whether a game is good or not". In essence, I treat graphics as a red herring. It's neither here nor there, although it's designed to try and convince people.

Besides, I can't complain, I'm hoping to get a 360 soon! (In fact, there's masses of people in this forum that has Wii and a 360).

 

[Narah]

For me the most important thing is wether a game is fun or not. If a fun game also has good graphics, brilliant! If it doesn't, I don't mind.

 

[261311]

Graphics are a bonus, in other words, they don't make a game.
I do find that games with low-quality animations and graphics may even equal or surpass those with good graphics because they either a. spent more time on the game in the playability section, or b. had more money left over to use on the game from not exercising their right to put "l33t super gfx" in their games. This doesn't mean that graphically lacking games are always better, because just as ones that are graphically superior, they have their off-titles but this is more less of a generalization of my opinion.

 

[Eagles]

I think people get so caught up defending their consoles that statements like "Games with good graphics are not fun to play" just slip out. I play games because they are fun and normally the strength of the graphics in a particular game don't change the level of enjoyment for me. I guess that's why I own a Wii, because I have fun with Nintendo's games.

 

[hal2814]

I think you've picked the wrong quote to base your argument off of, Frummage. The post you quote is a rant from a person who believes his friend is wrong to think Bioshock more deserving of some Game of the Year award than Mario Galaxy solely based on graphics. Let's break down these points:

> The game [Bioshock] is NOT fun to play.
I challenge you to find anywhere Inferno7 stated or even implied how fun Bioshock is to play. Also note that Inferno7 never even states that Mario Galaxy deserves to be game of the year. The onyl thing he does is imply that Bioshock shouldn't beat out Galaxy solely based on graphics.

> The game has poor controls and/or game-play.
Uhhh... Where exactly did you get that from? I don't see any mention of Bioshock's controls or game-play.

> Everyone who likes the game is a "graphics-whore".
I highly doubt Inferno7's friend's comments are really a direct quote but even if it's just a paraphrase, it appears that there was some back and forth on Bioshock or Galaxy for game of the year and Inferno7's friend's defense of why Galaxy could not win is based solely on its graphics. He's very obviously stating the case on why his friend is a "graphics whore" along with a specific case of why he does not like "graphics whores." Never does this implication spill over to the Bioshock player in the general sense.

I don't have a horse in this race so don't think I'm making some sort of case for any game of the year award. I've personally never played Bioshock. I've never even heard of it. I'm sure it's fun. Personally, I'm not so keen on Mario Galaxy. I much prefer Paper Mario, but I really don't play enough games per year to even know what's out there.

I do see the point you're trying to make though and I do agree with it in principle. There are probably of people out there who think good graphics equals bad game. People with that mindset are as bad as those who think that graphics are more important than gameplay. But from the information we have at hand, there is no way of knowing if Inferno7 believes that good graphics equals poor gameplay. I hate to see a good argument lose because of poor reasoning, but making Frummage's argument and using Inferno7 as an example is exceptionally poor reasoning.

 

[FRuMMaGe]

I challenge you to find anywhere Inferno7 stated or even implied how fun Bioshock is to play.

"Im so annoyed and I know this is the millionth thread about it but I just want to stress my point! My friend is anoyying now because all he cares about in a game is the graphics! Im so tired of graphics whores. They are so annoying I mean, these days its all about graphics! Where has the real fun gone? Listen to this retarded

--------------------------------------------------------

Uhhh... Where exactly did you get that from? I don't see any mention of Bioshock's controls or game-play.

Sorry I didn't put this very well. I wasn't referring to this post, rather the whole thread and similar threads.

------------------------------------------------

> Everyone who likes the game is a "graphics-whore".
I highly doubt Inferno7's friend's comments are really a direct quote but even if it's just a paraphrase, it appears that there was some back and forth on Bioshock or Galaxy for game of the year and Inferno7's friend's defense of why Galaxy could not win is based solely on its graphics. He's very obviously stating the case on why his friend is a "graphics whore" along with a specific case of why he does not like "graphics whores." Never does this implication spill over to the Bioshock player in the general sense.

Here is a quote from the same user:

"If online got taken away from Halo 3, Only a handful would quit because they would just love to look at the cinematics over and over again."

--------------------------------------------------

I do see the point you're trying to make though and I do agree with it in principle. There are probably of people out there who think good graphics equals bad game. People with that mindset are as bad as those who think that graphics are more important than gameplay. But from the information we have at hand, there is no way of knowing if Inferno7 believes that good graphics equals poor gameplay. I hate to see a good argument lose because of poor reasoning, but making Frummage's argument and using Inferno7 as an example is exceptionally poor reasoning.

I was using Inferno7 as an example because he was acting like a stereotypical "gameplay-whore"

Sorry if any of it was unclear. I wasn't trying to make a case, I was just stating my opinion :yesnod:

 

[Dreamweaver]

Imo, grahpics are another part of the game. Just one of many contributing factors that decide how good I think it is. Personally, I don't think it is any more or less important than gameplay, although that might seem a little extreme and many would disagree.

 

[Harek]

Imo, grahpics are another part of the game. Just one of many contributing factors that decide how good I think it is. Personally, I don't think it is any more or less important than gameplay, although that might seem a little extreme and many would disagree.

You're kidding right :mad5: Id rather play a game with weak graphics and good gameplay compared to the other way around any day. Example: why is the virtual console so popular, because the games on it have such awesome graphics?:crazy:

 

[Dreamweaver]

You're kidding right :mad5: Id rather play a game with weak graphics and good gameplay compared to the other way around any day. Example: why is the virtual console so popular, because the games on it have such awesome graphics?:crazy:

I happen to like the graphics of VC games a lot more than current ones for some reason. Anyway, I wasn't saying I'd rather play a game with nice graphics than good gameplay. What I'm saying is that to me they are equal and there shouldn't be one factor that makes a good game, it's ALL part of the experience.