Graphic-determinism or Gameplay-determinism, which side are you?

This is not only a question to the game console publishers, but always a question to all gamers. Ask yourself this, which of the following facts or aspects means more to you, and as well as to the entire global market and to all potential customers, the graphics or the gameplay, that people want to see more improvement? There was never a concreted conclusion. People among different flags with different believes are still arguing each other with massive amount of examples to back them up.

Back in 80s, 90s, it seems like that both facts were used by the console publisher and the software publisher to battle the others, however, to console publishers, it was as always, “Buy us, because we have better graphics”; there was a concept of so called "bit war”, which was frequently adopted by the console publishers to manipulate the mind of general public, even though the most of public had absolutely no idea what “bit” really was, or what did it do, but as always, they would be told that more “bit” means better graphics, and also means better gaming experience. I would say it is wrong, because, I not am sure about you, but if you do so please try to remember in the old days, almost every single video game console advertisings and commercials used very much identical words, pointing out their significant amount of “bit”. Even Nintendo was guilty at the same time; otherwise their earlier console wouldn’t be called “Nintendo 64”. So why are gamers so obsess about better graphics? The answer is that, better graphics can provide the gamers with advanced realities. Characters look alive, the world looks real, and if it is the war game we talk about, then the atmosphere is shockingly amazing. It is a generation into feeling. Have you played the game Battlefield 3 yet? With the help of Frostbite 2 engine, this game looks almost exactly like the real world. It shocked me into my core at the second stage where you fly an air fighter off a carrier; the light form sun; the reflection from the sea; and the images above and below. Personally, there is no word for what I been through. The experience bought by the advanced graphics is simply outstanding in my eyes; far surpass my expectation as a living human being. This is what the graphics do; stop lying to yourself if you still believed picture means nothing to gaming experience. However, it is still too early to nail the broad on this discussion yet.

Previously I mentioned a general description of the console war up to generation of PS2, NGC and XBOX. I know that I shouldn’t include, or inappropriate to line up XBOX along with PS2 and NGC, because of its online experience, but if we look at the selling number comparison (I am not going to list the numbers, because I am sure you can Google it), PS2 was sold more units than NGC and XBOX sold together. It indicates that, during that specific period of time, or should we call it “the era of PS2”, the online experience is less important to gamer comparing to the experience bought by massive amount of singleplay games and splite-screen mulitplay experience. In this generation of gaming console war, (By the way, I am still highly doubt if Nintendo Wii is qualified to be count as this generation or not, because of its horrible none HD graphics support.) same thing happened again, even though both Xbox360 and PS3 have far better graphics and online support, but they were not able to stop Nintendo dominating the world gaming market. This is worth our thinking. What are the reasons behind Nintendo’s success? What correct Nintendo from going the same path which leads NGC to its death? At the E3 2008, the president of Nintendo North America, Reggie Fils-Aime asks the public, also themselves, whether it is possible to bring some for everybody, and by saying “everybody”, I think he means both the casual gamers and core gamers? He though the answer is positive. But there are always two sides of stories just like two sides of one coin. I think the people who bought the original NES are not the same group of people who bought the Nintendo Wii. I have to say I am totally agreed with second point of view. To me, as a core gamer, I found the Wii is quite a disappointment. For one thing, I had played Resident Evil 4 on Wii for a day, and seriously I almost couldn’t felt my arm in the second day; and for second, the graphics on Wii very much stays at stage of Playstation 2. The picture is blurred along with great amount aliasing all over the place. I am kind of regret of buying this useless piece of crap. If I could go back in time, I would like to get my money back.

Right now, I am begging for the earlier arriving of the next generation console. Lucky me, or it could be a mine, the Nintendo Wii U is just around the corner. Nintendo promised that Wii U is going to support HD graphics, and yet supports a better online experience, along with a brand new controller, which by the way highly doubted by myself its comfort level; with a lcd screen on it, you do have the reason to question its weight, and the positions of the sticks and bottoms are not designed scientifically match our hand structure and thumb moving pattern. So far, if the graphics is butter, and gameplay is bread, then seems like the new Wii U is going to become the ultimate butted bread. So what do you think of this argument?

Albert (Nan) Sun