twasdfzxcv said:
What I'm arguing is that, with graphics, you can invoke a emotional response with little story and context needed.
And what I'm arguing is that you don't absolutely
require those good graphics to create that emotional response. That has been my point this entire time. That a good game does not necessarily
require good graphics, that you can have a good game without good graphics. My entire debate in this thread sparked off from Azure Sky saying that
"While it IS possible to build one for that price, you wouldn't do it in this day and age, as it would be several years out of date before it is even built, which defeats the point of a gaming PC."
to me responding with a "...Seriously, dear readers, anyone who tells you you need at least 800-900$ to build any kind of gaming computer is, well... talking BS."
which led to Azure Sky saying
"Unless they are after a PC that won't be obsolete by the time next years/year after game releases come around."
In MW, the only think you need to know about the context is that you've been killing countless enemies for hour and BOOM, you got hit by a nuke. That sequence along is worth thousands of words.
I agree. It is one of the few rare cases where graphics was used to show an emotionally touching scene. And yet, my point has been, that you don't need a top-of-the-line gaming beast wunning at 2000-something resolutions with 24" or greater display to appreciate that scene. It is just as touching with a smaller screen, with a smaller resolution, with less than maxed out graphical settings. You don't
need to see it from a movie theater canvas for it to reach out and grasp your soul.
I happen to think that an RPG ought to tell a story. I think a story is an important supporting element in FPSs (though exceptions like Painkiller exist). A good story can make an RTS rise above the multitude of average and shine on it's own. In action games, a story can tie levels together, and make you return to the game time after time.
I think gameplay is the single one core thing you can't detract from. Good graphics and a good story can compensate for a somewhat mediocre gameplay, but nothing can save a game with a poor gameplay. But excellent gameplay with a good story can compensate for poor graphics, but such a game will never rise to greatness. That I feel is the essence of a videogame: Gameplay is the core, story the adhesive and supporting structure, graphics the cream on the top. Without gameplay, the whole structure collapses. Without even a token story, graphics will wobble and not quite sit right, as you won't have the proper context to place what you are seeing in relation to everything else. Without graphics, gameplay and story need to be excellent for the game to be interesting, but the basic structure can be made sound (see NetHack, Dwarf Fortress, Master Of Orion II, Limbo, Psychonauts etc) ; but when you have solid performance on all three, you have a stable tower of entertainment reaching for the skies for all to see.