CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
No, the best games that have ever existed were ASCII games. Roguelike and roleplaying MUDS. Graphical games of the modern age have an appeal for a short while until you get tired of the repetitive animations and suddenly a huge void grows inside you longing for something more. Old text based MMO's and ascii games that use words to describe things allow for mental imagery to come into play and your imagination will always keep you entertained. Also, the current best game of all time "Diablo 1" is really just an isometrical graphical rendition of Rogue. With largely the same concept.
I was going to join yes and say that graphics do matter. for the simple reason that there needs to some visuals (graphics, of any quality being those visuals) but because this is about the quality then I'll go with no.
No because its the quality of the story, the game play, the experience that matter. imagine packman with incredible graphics. its hard to imagine that it would have the same effect as the old original simple one. graphics matter only if the game itself is good.
take the same game. one with worse graphics and one with better if nothing else is different and the game benefits from having better graphics then yes have you fancy graphics if not then have the worse graphics.
People play old school games all of the time and no one cares. Graphics aren't the only component. There's stuff like storyline, difficulty, game-play, controls, whether or not you can play online, genre, creativity, player freedom, maps, popularity, popular online gaming, etc. And graphics matter very little as long as there's color and you can see what everything is.
Old school games can be good. The old Pokemon games are still played by a lot of people, as well as the old Mortal Combat and Legend of Zelda.
Mine Craft has terrible graphics and it's considered a good game by a lot of people. What your saying is BS. As long as it's not an old, text based, MUD game, it's graphics can be pretty bad and be sufficient.
No. Don't get me wrong, I love good graphics. And now everything is graphically clear and bright. However you don't need good graphics for a good game. Like Zelda the Ocarina of time, or Bomber man, or any of the older games like that. Or even minecraft, which is more modern. Sucky graphics. Yet a good game (depending on who you ask)
Not t all I like quite a few games that don't have amazing graphics. Like now I'm playing a pixel horror called "crooked man" the graphics aren't amazing but it's an awesome game.
Graphics is like the physical character of a person. In the start it makes the person very interesting, but if the person isn't very fun to spend time with the looks don't really matter.
Not really because Mario's graphics weren't so sophisticated and good ;they were mostly pixels; and Mario became one of the most popular games in the world with everlasting value.
Like... it's nice when a video game is aesthetically appealing.
Like, I care mostly for story when it comes to movies. But if the special effects are garbage, the movie is going to be sort of disappointing.
Old games in a time when graphics were shittier didn't have to compete that much on graphics. But these days if your graphics are shit, the game is most likely shit. Not to mention how easy it is to have a decent running game with all the available engines.
so tell me this. Would you rather play a game with bad graphics but horrible gameplay or would you rather play a game with awesome graphics but terrible gameplay.
Neither. I would rather play a game with good gameplay and graphics. I'm not saying that graphics are more important than gameplay, I'm just saying that they still do matter in a game.
Graphics largely contribute to why games are more complex and lengthy due to the size in computing capacity. Old games were short and choppy due to less computing power.
A game with bad graphics can be just as lengthy as games with good graphics. The reason why old games with bad graphics aren't long is because they didn't have the technology back then. Besides I'm talking about N64 and ps1 games not 8-bit and 16-bit games and oh by the way games back then where a lot harder to beat then games today may I remind you.
In the movie industry their is the saying "location, location, location" and in the gaming industry it translates to "game play, game play, game play." Yes the graphics have evolved but really matters is the game play, which has evolved much further. If you gave a game like Call of Duty or Skyrim bad graphics people would still play it for the game play and if you have a game like Ace of Spades good graphics few people would play it. Why? Because the game play is terrible.
The evolution of video games isn't from bad graphics to HD, its from this and this to this and this.
And if people only played games if they had good graphics, why does minecraft have such a huge community?
I am not an gamer, but the gaming industry wouldn't be game play, game play, game play, it would be graphics, graphics, graphics. People play Call of Duty or Skyrim because of the graphics just like people played the early games because of the cool graphics then. People playing old games is just nostalgia. The evidence is even in your own answer, if playing games is about game play and some games are terrible, why would anyone play? The market would die.
For instance, I don't play golf for the fun, I play for scenic landscapes and thrill of competition.
1.If your not a gamer then you obviously have no place in this debate and you obviously don't have much experience with games.
2.actually did you know more and more people are playing a game for its gameplay and not its graphics. Just because people value graphics more doesn't mean their important.
3.I wont deny people value graphics back then and today but really that's not why someone should play a game just because of how realistic it looks, games are meant to be played for fun not because of "omg! the graphics on this game are awesome I don't care if the gameplay sucks"
4.Nostalgia. That's partially true but there are some old games I have not played during my childhood that I enjoy playing even my little brothers who never grew up with a Nintendo64 enjoy playing the console.
5.If people are going to be that retarded and not buy a game just because of how bad graphics are, then that's fine but I wont.
6.A game with bad graphics can have a pretty level design take donkey kong country for example it came out in 1994 and the graphics suck compared to today but the game looks gorgeous and the level design is breath taking for a 16 bit game. :)
People don't play Call of Duty and Skyrim for the graphics, they play them because the game play has evolved a lot. The first call of duty had almost tank like controls, the campaign missions were very repetitive and there was almost no customization. In the most recent Call of Duty the campaign features a variety of levels, a zombie mode, class customization and very smooth controls. Same thing with the first elder scrolls game, tank like controls, clunky combat and not much customization or choices, in Skyrim there are better controls, combat and customization + a much larger world.
The market runs on gameplay, I can't think of a single gamer I know who plays for the graphics. However, I know a good amount of people that play older games for gameplay, not nostalgia.
It has always been about the gameplay its just that gamers fail to realize that. Also just because there is a sequel to a game series doesn't mean its going to improve and get better. Take sonic 06 for example its a sequel to sonic heroes and it sucks compared to it and then take mw3 it sucks compared to the prequels. The list goes on :/
If the video game industry is purely about game play, then why is Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony engaged in a fierce competition in producing increased graphical consoles. The simple answer is competing for the consumer, remember the consumer is the king in the marketplace, producers only curtail production to the consumer.
For example, Nintendo introduced the original Nintendo, then Super Nintendo, then N64, then GameCube, then Wii, then Wii U. The same is for Microsoft with XBox, then Xbox 360, then Xbox 720.
If gaming was purely about game play, all games would be purely complementary except some substitutions based on personal preferences. The video game industry would be boring because the competition wouldn't exist because no game can be differentiated to any other. But, graphical improvements in video games allows any game at any time to be a perfect substitution because better graphics transfer people to new genres of games.
People buy or maintain old cars for nostalgia, modern cars today are superior in all ways. The same is for video games.
1.Technically its about innovation not graphics, developers want to make graphics look more realistic so the player can feel more immersive in the game. It also shows the consoles innovative graphical capabilities.
2.No its about graphics because it shows how innovative the games and console is.
3.comparing cars to video games XD. Video games are far different and as for that opinion of yours on how people play old games just for nostalgia is complete bulshit true maybe some gamers but as for gamers like me we find that games back then can be just as fun as games today.
I get where you're coming from, I really do, however I think you would understand it much better if you were a gamer. As you said, the consumers are king in the marketplace and the demand comes from gamer.
I'm just trying to say that its easier to understand if you played the games. I don't know if that made sense because I had two bowls of sour kush and write back to that with understandings.
Not only am I correct about how the video game industry evolves in relation to economics, but I was as a gamer in the days of Nintendo 64 and Sega Genesis and PlayStation 2, so from my own experiences, I felt that there were no special connection to the old consoles because there were better games and consoles. I could care less about the old games, they only exist as space takers. Also, if video games was about game play, why does Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo no longer produce the old consoles? Because the industry has evolved in graphics.
However there are some gaming genres that need good graphics for example first person shooters and racing games. As for games like 3-d platformers and rpg's. Grapgics arent all tthat important. Most game genres don't need graphics. What people seem to forget is the whole reason to playing a game is to have fun,not to look at the games graphics. Games can ahve beatiful looking level designs with or without graphics I have already proven that. Graphics are important but their the least important factor of a game.
First off, ignore what I wrote above, I wrote that when I was high.
-----
I never said the old consoles were better, I said that the advancement that made games better was game play, not the graphics. People don't play Call of Duty: Black Ops II because of the graphics, they play it because the original Call of Duty featured 33 guns and no attachments and Call of Duty: Black Ops II features 53 guns, 22 attachments, 15 perks, 15 camo choices, 8 wild cards and better controls.
Also, if video games was about game play, why does Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo no longer produce the old consoles?
First off, the notion of games not being about game play is just ridiculous. If game play didn't matter and people just wanted a wanted good graphics they would just order animated films from netflix because it is much cheaper and the movies have much better graphics.
Secondly they produce new consoles because you need stronger and more powerful systems to run more advanced games. Take Morrowind or Oblivion for instance, even if you gave it the graphics of Minecraft older consoles and computers couldn't handle it. Why? Because you need an a strong system to run a game world of that size and complexity.
The notion of playing video games absent of game play is not what I am suggesting, of course, people play for the game, but graphics have a bigger influence by the advancement in graphics because it is more life like
Well, I have played both, yet the latter obviously, but the whole point in a competitive marketplace for video games is good graphics and gameplay. The only scernio when gameplay is more important is when no more games are produced.
Yes... and absolutely not. Yes in a sense that graphics are very important since, well... we're deep into the 21st Century and graphics should be excellent. Absolutely not in the sense that almost everyone wants a good gameplay. That's what made Halo 3 so good. It had great graphics for it's time period, and its gameplay was amazing.
In some cases, games can be fun without amazing graphics... but if we hadn't improved game graphics, we'd be stuck playing games like Pong and Tetris still.
Since this is now 2015, the emphasis should be on graphics. Those games with the latest state-of-the-art graphics should sell the most based on the latest technology.
