no

You have to consider though, whether gameplay is actually being affected.  Okay, so there are no towns in FF13, but they are essentially just texture-expensive item malls in some cases; having the shops available from a save station means you can still buy and sell your stuff, but you don't have to trail all the way back to some other place and you don't therefore need to change discs.

I think that getting rid of one of the enduring banes of the Final Fantasy series (zipping around all the shops to see if anything new is in) was a good idea.  I'm not saying that that I'm wild about the lack of freedom, but the story that is there is very well-developed and there is piles upon piles of cutscenes and voice acting.

The real gameplay of FF13 has nothing to do with locations, but rather with facing off against enemies and trying first of all to survive and second of all to switch gears quickly enough to get the gold stars and a loot drop so that you can move on to face tougher opponents.

I think that although it can get a bit repetitive, the gameplay is appealing because although the controls and the customisation of tactics are simply done, you do have to think about what tactics you will use and when.  Sure, the FF12 gambit system offered a lot of customisation of tactics, but it did not cover many simple things automatically like FF13's system (for example, ally is injured, medic uses a Cure) essentially requiring a rule for every contingency.

I would say in response to your question, where HD graphics are appropriate they should be used.  If gameplay has to be adapted because only so many textures can fit into a disc, then so be it.  Where gameplay is paramount, then graphics should be adapted as needed.

I think that in the future, the pressing demand for HD quality and lots of actual game content is also going to cost gamers a fortune either because games will come on many HD discs, or on a new format entirely, and their console's hard disk will quickly fill to capacity when they install that content to improve loading times.  Cue cheers from Microsoft shareholders.

I don't think graphics are the reason those games got simplied. Rather that was a deliberate design goal to try and cater to a different audience: one that doesn't understand complexity (and has to deal with the absolutely godawful console control scheme which just doesn't work for strategy games very well).

I suppose it depends whether the cost of producing HD graphics can come down at all.

One component of the cost is whomever is getting paid to make them, the other is the computing time needed to render them.  While the salaries of graphics designers may not change particularly quickly, the cost of computing time can definitely get lower as more processing power becomes available for the same or less power consumption.  This then means that your average designer isn't spending so much time waiting on renders and can get more work done.

If HD graphics didn't have a good effect on sales (giving value for money spent on them) they would be used more sparingly than they are presently, I think.  That's not to say that there won't be cutbacks in future, because as you rightly said once the market becomes saturated with HD games, its effect on sales is diluted.

However, since the price of a game on the shelf is also a factor in a gamer's decision to buy, non-HD games could still compete for a slice of the market if they're good enough, because they don't cost as much to make.

For me, gameplay trumps graphics. However, for most people, the first impression their will get from a game is its' graphics. It is probably the great factor that sells them the game. It is no wonder why game studios go crazy about them.

By the way, I am currently highly enjoying X-COM: Apocalypse even if its' graphics are ugly as hell by today's standards.

I grew up on system shock, lots of Ultima Games 2-6 + Worlds, Metal Fatigue, Wing Commander (9 floppies) where Storyline was the number one.  Gameplay was right up with story.  Graphics due to technology was poor.  Gamed from 1990 onward and "storyline" is what most companies **Cough**SINS**-no campaign*BS*Cough** leave out.

would i trade hd graphics for gameplay? yes

do i want to play goldeneye and stellar frontier style graphics?

no way

i am a firm believer in the ability to "have your cake and eat it too"

perhaps thats why i cannot stand most paradox games, i hear they have good gameplay, but their graphics is not only bad but its extremely uninspired.

honestly, if there is an asset, there shouldent be any excuse for not hiring an artist to give it a good look, no matter how complex your game.

In this day in age both are important, one should not be better then the other instead they should balance each other out. I guarantee if you take one of the most loved games of this age (cod, dmc4, halo, doesn't matter) and give it 1990 graphics, wait you can't do that because many of those amazing mechanics that go into those games depends on the graphics to visually communicate what that character is doing to us. 

now if you ask would I trade graphics for story that would be a rhetorical question as story is king in 99.9% of entertainment.

On a final not it is not graphics that is hurting the games and game play, it is the engines that are being used. Graphics are beautiful, it does not matter if the engine cannot handle something or do what the programmer wishes it to do. On that note its the fact that many games out their are either A. using the exact same game engine, or slightly altered engine was a few older games, or B a even harder method and trying to create their own engine for the game. A beautiful example of A to my understanding is demigod which uses the supreme commander game engine, but it is the damn graphics that are conveying a whole different change to the environment being portrayed.

On another note if little to no time was actually invested into thus graphics then we all be having a repeat of FFI-II where they did nothing but recycle graphics from older games and place them into newer ones. A reason why pc games is falling to console is the damn fact that people don't like to have to always worry about updating their pc to keep up with current games; which can easily be argued graphics fault (which is also a valid argument), but not every is the type of gamer which wants to worry, has the type of income, or just don't want to care about such things; which is the biggest reason people prefer console.

If you want better game play, then get off your ass, get behind a computer and start programming dammit, stop fucking yelling this and that and get your ass out their and do something about it.  Why I care, I'm trying to be one of those people who put fucking hours into making those beautiful graphics in the games we see today, and I literally see being said in many of these post is; "fuck you and all the work you are putting in, you are the reason games are sucking."

Another thing; to one of the post made here, games were never considered a art in the past, they just consider something a child used to pass the time, or had nothing better to day, it was only a few years back that games actually considered pieces of artwork. It was even more recently that it was cnsidered such a peice that they actually cared to create a college course for actually fucking making them. I honestly think 3/4 of the gaming community forget the type of work put into actually making a game; not just graphics but everything about them. 

I will also repeat myself here, story surpasses everything; gameplay and graphics. I've stopped playing some beautifully modeled game because of a bs story, and kept playing games that literally had no damn graphics but I loved the story.

All hail final fantasy mystic quest, 1 - 7.

Edit again

i can't even leave it right here because I still see this as a matter of the game, their are games and titles that I automatically eith look for A. story, or B. both great/good/ok graphics and fun game play.

Final fantasy; is a series where story should always rule over everything, and even though I don't like some of the later games, it does not deny story being its main thing.

Twisted metal on the other hand is a game that after twisted metal 2; I stop coming to the series for story and cared more about fun carnage, game play, and at least, decent graphics.

Empire earth/supreme commander/rise of nations; are games that are ultimately dominated by game play, but their graphics are all decent in my eyes.

Demigod; I had originally come to this game looking for a beautiful story, it was the story on the back of the box that led to me buying this game, not the graphics and not queen of thorns. But I still return to this game because it has some of the most beautiful graphics I have seen in many if not most games of its genre.

Thief series/Assassin creed; These are stories where story dominated to this day their story continue to dominate (even though really no game can do stealth justice on the level the thief series did, but assassin creeds does a decent job to me). But really outside running, hiding, and specefic area climbing, thief game play was little, but please by all means try and blame it on graphics, which these are two game series where graphics were little more important then other due to the type of games they were (stealth and hiding in shadows).

I can go on with the list but you get my point.

Why try something new when your favorite food is always there? Why learn to ride a bike when walking or driving has always been sufficient? The answer is to change and learn. Gaming is a forever growing entity; a company must always learn from both their success, and mistakes, and even go against the grain to try something new. Do you or their fan base know why they made that change? Maybe they didn't have a choice, maybe it was to open doors to something bigger and better, maybe they felt the old engine simply couldn't do something the new engine could, did you know if they even had access to a 3-D engine that could randomize at that time, or just simply they wanted change. A company completely governed by making profits and always feeding the same to their fan base will never grow on the level as the other company that took the chance to try something new; even if they knew it could lose some of their fanbase. *coughkirbyyarncough*

3-D is not ruining games, this is the same damn argument that was literally said when voices were first introduced to movies; they said it will ruin them. The problem is balance; do you want to know why the cost of graphics are so high; try buying some 3-D software and see how much time is spent to get those geometry, Google to programs Inferno, and Houdini and see how much these cost and then you'll see why so much money is put into it. Look into how games don't just use 3-D. but things like motion caption, color theory, and damn near lighting take their place in this also. All this stuff falls under the art end, and has to be done right just to make the game not look realistic, but make the games graphics just look decent.In some of these games like dmc and god of war where some stuff is almost impossible to research they have to work their asses off to get the level of realism which these games possess to this day. 3-D has open a new door for gaming, has got it respect as an actual art form, which games with amazing story lines could not do due to the fact majority just viewed gaming as a childs toy.

Has 3-D destroyed 2-D strategy games; I will honestly say no, because 2-D strategy games are sadly dying, or falling deeper into a comma; along side pc gaming. Don't tell me it isn't when pc gaming has to turn and start turning some of their games into console games also(which I effing hate is happening); that should let us know the type of trouble pc games are currently facing.

Yes, that's exactly what everyone in this thread is saying. 3-d graphics are expensive as hell. Any given game only has X dollars in it's budget. The more of X that gets sucked away for 3-d graphics the less money there is to spend on plot, gameplay, sound, bug testing, play testing, polish, modding tools, a good manual, etc, etc.

Most of the people in this thread would rather see a larger chunk go to the actual game, rather than to eye candy which, particularly in the case of 3-d graphics, will look like dated crap in a couple of years anyway.

You disagree. Fine, although I note that's not because of any real gaming preference on your part, but because as a 3-d graphics programmer you feel personally threatened by the idea that you are not indispensable.

And I'll also state that, for the record, games are not considered an art form because of their graphics. They are considered an art form as an interactive story telling media.

Incidently I will say you can go to far the other way. Dwarf Fortress for example looks really interesting to me, but I am simply not willing to invest the personal time I would need to be able to even understand what the screen is showing me behind those non-representational ASCI graphics. And that's speakng as a man who played hundreds of hours on old school ASCI games like Moria and Ancient Anguish.

I think Mr. Ebert is an idiot and I came to that conclusion after reading one article on the internet so he must be right... or something.

Now, I'm not a fan of the basic ASCII graphics, either. But they're far from non-representational. Given that there are graphics for Dwarf Fortress (awesome, awesome, dorfy graphics) what puts me off is rather the non-intuitive UI. Which is much more of a gameplay issue than the graphics ever was.