I still say that actual gameplay is more important than graphics, aesthetics or even story. A game can have a high quality of all three of those and still suck if the actual gameplay is bland and forgettable (e.g. FFXIII). Likewise, a game can have very low quality of all 3 and still have excellent gameplay (Diablo 2 is the eternal example here).

Still, all else being equal I'd rather have a game that looks pleasant than one that looks technically excellent.

I can only say that I agree completely with everything he says (except the bit about how fantastic the PSP version of Parappa The Rapper looks, regarding that, I think he's bonkers). I'm sick of grey-brown games that all look more or less the same. Not that every game should be a rainbow, but trying to make everything look "real" is more or less defeating the whole purpose of games as a medium.

But then it's generally a matter of personal preference. I actually enjoyed FFXIII's gameplay a whole lot. I personally believe that whether or not gameplay is bad is entirely subjective.

I partially agree. I think aesthetics are at least as important as gameplay. I think the trend of extolling gameplay over all else stems from a failure to distinguish graphics from aesthetics (one reason why I found myself liking this video so much). Like the man says, aesthetics and gameplay work together.

Personally I think Diablo 2 is an aesthetically well made game. I think if the game did have truly bad aesthetics (e.g white blocks on a black background) then it wouldn't be half as memorable. As long as gaming is a visual medium, then the visuals are pretty important, just so long as we remember what counts is aesthetics, not graphics.

Extra Credits always makes for an interesting five minutes, even if the argument's been made a dozen times already.

Aesthetics are important because context is important, and having some form of context works as a great motivator. Game-play stands in the center and all around it is its support and it does need support.

Yeah, I'm always annoyed at how I've heard everything before, but it's a good review of the important details from the few I've seen.

Arg, D2 is NOT an example of gameplay, it's an example of the same, terrible, skinner box gameplay that makes WOW so tedious.

I'm with you, graphics are nice, but you can have a ton of fun with pretty terrible graphics, or none at all in the case of Zork and some other text based games.

YES! Brilliantly put. I think that's what I had in mind but couldn't put into words.

Fair enough. I was just stating that I personally hold gameplay above all else. I fully realize that this sort of thing is subjective, and there's no one "right" answer to which aspect deserves the highest priority. I'll admit that Diablo 2 isn't an ugly game, but compared to games like Fallout and Arcanum it just doesn't rate as high. Though again this is a very subjective thing, and in fact I couldn't tell you why I think Fallout and Arcanum look nicer than Diablo 2, I just do. There really is no accounting for taste!

I think you're right, and I think that's part of the graphics/aesthetics distinction: graphics are objective, aesthetic is subjective. Fallout and Arcanum might not be much technically better, but it's certainly not wrong to argue that they are better looking games.

thats why morrowind has much better ascetics than oblivion... :D
another good point in the video -> ascetics lets you be involved in the game...
So in what games you get involved more? In good old games of course ;)

There's much, much more to aesthetics than a reliance on the subjective view.

Aesthetics was easily the weakest part of Quake, the engine kicked ass, and the multiplayer was really popular, but the development team didn't seem to be able to figure out what sort of an FPS it was, but failed to go as far as the team did with Painkiller.

It's amazing to me how good games like Moto Racer look a full decade after release. Apart from the low resolution the game still looks pretty good. Same goes for games as old as Wolf 3D and Commander Keen.