This is such a ridiculous stereotype, and I'm not sure when it became so black and white regarding gameplay vs. graphics. For as much as Nintendo fans don't like others coming down on their choice for different reasons, there are certainly a fair share of Nintendo gamers who seem to be fine with ripping other gamers because they enjoy graphics.
I think you'll also find the vast majority of those who enjoy good graphics for - you know - VIDEO games, want them in conjunction with good gameplay and stories, not one or the other. And as an owner of 5 different consoles and a Vita and PC, I can easily say there are WAY more than enough quality games that offer the complete package with embarrassingly better graphics than most Nintendo games.
Gamers should not have to sacrifice good graphics and put up with awkward gameplay gimmicks just to get quality gameplay. And they're not, which is why Nintendo is losing out and continues to fall.
So yes, the falling behind on graphics is a huge element to what's hurting Nintendo. They put their time, money and effort elsewhere for a second time and it didn't work out for them again. As others and Nintendo have said, they misread the market...really badly.
No. No. Not even close. I like graphics. I love analyzing them, even back to ps2/cube, and beyond. But this, this is just brainwashed narrative.
The quality of games whose gameplay actually matches the money effort and marketing of graphics are virtually non existant today. You can practically count them on one hand. Like my ps360 collection. In fact, you might find that they practically ARE my ps360 collection.
Everything else is just copy pasted gameplay from a decade ago, simplified, streamlined, computer assisted to the point I can actually defeat enemies by slapping my genitals across the controller. Challenge, and thus skill, have been completely removed, and replaced by dramatic depictions of FAKE challenge. Making players think they are amazing, by showing amazing things happening on screen, but in reality any idiot can accomplish the same results by slamming their face into the controller repeatedly.
Jonathan Blow wrote a presentation on it entitled 'Dramatic representations of Faux challenge' and, despite being written in 2007/8 it has accurately predicted the current level of crap the AAA games market has descended into.
The REASON we gamers HAVE to typically sacrifice good graphics for actual gameplay is because AAAAAAAAAAAA publishers all make the same kinds of games has they have created an incredibly risk adverse environment, and have dropped into a cycle of easily marketable products to an easily manipulatable consumer base, and more importantly games media/metacritic base.
1. Genre capability of easily expressing good graphics check
2. Non challenging gameplay in a well established comfortable genre that any idiot can play without ever needing skill to progress. check
3. Non challenging game play presented in a way that makes the player think they are good at games. Check
4. not good amounts of money poured into VO, Cutscenes and manchild story presentation. Check.
This is the ONLY WAY to get the kind of money needed to get the production values associated with the big name AAAAAA releases. If you dont follow this, the big publishers will NOT give you the resources you need to match those games production values.
Why? Well, contrary to what you and everyone else the marketing department of these publishing houses has used the games media to brainwash you into thinking, a AAA game is NOT a high scoring game, it is NOT a high quality game, it is NOT in any WAY SHAPE OR FORM INDICTIVE OF HOW GOOD A GAME IS.
AAA is budget bracket reserved for games the MARKETING TEAM believes will sell a lot if heavily marketed because it matches the same criteria as previously established mega hits. If it doesnt match that criteria, its not getting that funding for those top teir graphics.
This is why every game that comes along that bucks that trend, that actually HAS good gameplay, gets split reviews straight down the middle, either 10's, or 5's and 4's.
Older reviewers, who actually have gaming skills, can play the games, and rate them highly.
Newer generation reviewers, whos gaming skills have atrophied because they have been exposed to nothing but dramatic presentations of faux challenge, cant tell the difference between demanding gameplay, and 'broken' gameplay, and rate them 6's or 5's or IGN's infamous 3 for Godfist, which later on went to secure a place in IGN's greatest hundred games of all time.
You know, AFTER their incompetence aong with dozens of other media chains resulted in capcom shutting down the Creativity LOVERs studio, whos sole purpose was to determine if their was still a market for pioneering creative games with exceptional tight, and challenging gameplay. The kind of stuff that put capcom on the map originally.
It has gotten to the point that gamz girnolists have to be proven wrong again and again and again and again repeatedly, before they start revieweing games and franchises correctly, like say, MONSTER HUNTER.
Or, a series needs to undergo a complete marketing makeover, in order to get a chance to be viewed fairly, like KINGS FIELD, which is today known as the Demon/Dark souls series.
Son no. Not even close. 99% of games today, the entirety of the mainstream market, is little more than simon says paired with flashy computer graphics.
Its garbage, filth, trash, aimed at the lowest common denominator, and the big publishers are doing every thing in their power to keep it that way.
