Games Summit panel discussion: graphics or gameplay? |
At the 2007 Montreal Independent Games Summit, industry experts gathered at a panel discussion to talk about the Wii and the DS, their role in the industry, and how they challenged the idea that good graphics sell games.
With the advent of the next-generation consoles there's been an increased attention to the realism factor of gaming. However, with the phenomenal success of the Wii and the DS, a large question loomed on the industry: "What sells? Graphics or gameplay?"
The panel in the summit consisted of Patrick Fortier (who worked on Splinter Cell: Conviction), Ubisoft Creative Director Clint Hocking, Beenox Creative Director Thomas Wilson, and Electronic Arts Senior Producer Oliver Sykes.
For the most part, the industry experts agreed that with the arrival of the next-gens, the trend was to have games with more realistic graphics. Unfortunately, this sacrificed gameplay in some ways, and furthermore threatens to be the most important part of gaming.
They agreed that graphics play a major part of the experience in gaming - the better the graphics, the more immersive the experience, as some would say. However, some of them expressed how they wish some of the Wii and DS's focus on gameplay experience could carry over to the PS3 and 360.
They agree that the entrance of the Wii influenced the market and broadened the gaming audience, but they express different views with how it exactly changed the terrain of the industry. Some agreed that it was the Wii itself rather than the innovative controller that popularized the Wii.
The introduction of the Wiimote is a good interface, but it was the way the Wii won over non-gamers - for instance, grandmothers - that defined the Wii. In the end they agree that graphics is important, but a game shouldn't stop at just graphics. They conclude:
Hocking: I think it broadens what we talk about when we talk about gameplay. Holding a character in your arms with graphical realism might not be gameplay -- but it changes the experience of play radically compared to some faceless guy with no emotional resonance.
Sykes: There are ways to think about this, both completely opposite. I can understand ClintÂ’s point, but I cried when Aeris died in Final Fantasy 7. IÂ’d spent 60 hours with this character.
Hocking: But a processor didnÂ’t do that.
Sykes: IÂ’m just saying itÂ’s not something new. [There are] things like Half Life where youÂ’re completely immersed even though Gordon never says a word.
Fortier: [...] ThereÂ’s a big difference between what I saw the first Christmas and today. [The first] PlayStation was about 3D, PS2 was about making it look smooth, and this gen is about what can we do [to create] more complex game experiences.
Via Gamasutra
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
It's about balance... good games sells games, not pandering to a marketing aspect.
Meh...
Innovation is the key. Gameplay or graphics? How bout both. I just want something that looks great while presenting something I haven't experienced before.
Graphics aren't everything, but make the experience more immersive. Better processing power not only allows games to look better, but allows more to happen onscreen at once. This can in turn improve the gameplay.
It all depends on the games you like. If you want simple, and have a simple brain that can't figure out what button to press to do what, then you need a simple system. The Wii is a simple pick up and play system for these types of people. The Wii can provide a good, simple gameplay experience that's easy to learn. It's just too simplified for many people that have been playing games for a long time.
If your brain can do many things at once and can react quickly to many things going on around you, then you can handle a controller with many buttons and 2 analog sticks you must move independently. Rather than focusing on one simple task, you must do many tasks at once. This is why the PS3 and XBOX 360 do not have the soccer mom and homosexual appeal that the Wii does.
Great graphics AND gameplay are possible on any new system other than the Wii. The best the Wii could hope for is gameplay. Since the other true next gen systems have adequate power to produce outstanding visuals, making the gameplay great depends on the creativity of the developer, not limited uses of a gimmicky controller.
Obviously, gameplay is more important than graphics, if you prefer good graphics to good gameplay, you're an idiot. Regardless of how good something looks, if it's unplayable it's pointless.
everyone knows its not Graphics its game play you can have the best of the best Graphics but crappy gameplay the game will not sell well
Ur gay lovers right dude its all about the fun..not the look and i mean look at galaxy and metriod and brawl they look great!!
Just take a look at all the Wii games with horrible reviews. You can check any non-Nintendo sponsored site. It doesn't look like there's many promising titles coming up either.
With the XBOX 360 and PS3 you can have great graphics and gameplay. There's also a much better game selection that's not revolving around a single overused annoying mascot.
You seem to be handling the fact you're constantly proven wrong pretty well. You even changed your name to mimmick your own sexual orientation, perhaps hiding something?
Nah, I don't think that they have a problem with their sexual orientation. It's just that you annoy so many people here, that they actually are creating names just to poke fun at you....