Hochiminh’s Rant Day 3

I am going to take a timeout to talk to everyone why gameplay will always beat out graphics in the long run.

The latest specs on ign.com (http://revolution.ign.com/articles/699/699118p1.html)show that, unfortanately, the Nintendo Wii will be much weaker than the 360 and the PS3. But, really, can the graphics really get much better? Other systems think so. While they delve into the more fortified realm of graphic power, we delve into innovation, which is something that has been missing dearly in current systems as well as the video games themselves. “Look at those other systems!”, gamers will say, “They have the same old controller playing the same old games.” But when they see the Nintendo Wii: “Is that a TV Remote. Wow! You can move the character on the screen with this remote!”

Thus, that is one solid reason. Moreover, I was wondering how graphics can really help gameplay and innovation. This is what IGN had to say: http://revolution.ign.com/articles/704/704644p1.html. And I STILL don’t see it. There has been quite a few articles saying that graphics can IMPROVE gameplay and innovation. Quote me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see it. Sorry to be the Jimmy Kibble of video game lore, but how come they say that? Let’s examine an instance. Suppose that you are playing an 8-bit Nintendo tennis game that actually moves at 60 frames per second vs. a next-gen system at the same frame rate. Either if you play the 8-bit game or the next-gen game, alll you would have to hit the ball would be, let’s say, the A button. I mean, the ball will come to the player at the same time and the same button will do the action. Besides the graphics, neither one improves on the gameplay. It’s still the same concept.

If anyone quotes me wrong, please I would like a definite answer. Peace out…

Around The Net: