Are you sick and tired of Graphics comparison

[sephiroth1991]

When ever a new cross-platform game comes out, nearly all the time a bunch of people get togeather and compair the platforms graphics. However most of us know that graphics don't make a good game.

Are you sick and tired of this?

Why do people care about this?

 

[Estocavio]

I agree - In answer, some people care because they want the game to look prettier on their console or whatever. As a whole, gameplay is MUCH more important than graphics.

 

[Aidinthel]

Graphics don't require any actual thought to talk about. Sure, you could spend some time playing the game, getting the feel of its control scheme, seeing how well the combat works, if the bosses have decent variety, or you could just watch a 30 second video and go on a rant about how your system makes the game look nicer and is therefore superior in every way. People are lazy that way.

 

[Dexiro]

There are very few cases were the consoles have a major graphical difference but it does happen
Fallout 3 on the PS3 for example gives me a headache because there's no anti-aliasing.

Other than that one game i haven't played anything else where the graphics are bad enough to affect gameplay. Usually it's framerate problems rather than graphical.

 

[Audio]

Perhaps they just compare the game engines. "This game would play better in Unreal instead of Source"

 

[Capt. Crankypants]

Eh, this doesn't both bother me. I like nice graphics, and they may not be THE 'make or break' of a title, but they can certainly add to the experience. I cite Company of Heroes and Bad Company 2 as examples. With all the extra effort they put into bf:bc2 with the amounts of dust thrown up by things, the impaired visibility makes for more varied gameplay, and this can also make trying to drive a tank very messy (for anyone who's tried, you know), so vehicles don't just rule the field.

With Company of heroes and other modern RTS's, it really helps draw you into the game. when chunks of building crumble around the men inside and bullets ricochet off the walls, it's much more immersive than if the building simply had a health bar and changed into a patch of rubble when it ran out.

So no, I don't really mind a graphics comparison, we should probably be as critical of this as other aspects of gaming, and encourage it's use to help improve the overall gaming experience.

 

[comadorcrack]

Yeah I'm a little tired of it. Its really just flame bait.
We get it. 360 usually looks better because its usually the lead console!
I hate fan-boys of any iteration.

Peace x

 

[AtticusSP]

Not me man. I have both and it helps me decide what console to get it for.
Gotta get the best version, you know?

 

[Raikov]

I find that physics and really good sound effects have a much greater impact then graphics. This is why I loved Company of Heroes, and why I now love BFBC2. Sure, both of them look really nice with a high-end computer, but that's just a bonus.

The greatest thing about these games is that the physics can have an impact on gameplay, like when the house full of snipers crumble down into a pile of junk, or when the cover that your infantry is standing behind gets blown away (or just run over!) by a Tiger tank.

 

[CCountZero]

It really depends how you look at it.
Some "comparisons" are indeed just flamewars between differing levels of fanboyism-infused younglings.
But on occasion you do get something that actually makes sense, such as the Fallout 3 no-AA on PS3 as mentioned by Dexiro.

I share the opinion that graphics are not the most important part of a game, but as Lucas_90 points out, it certainly adds to the immersion.

And if you have both consoles, there are indeed people who can actually use the information for something.

A prime example being Arkham Asylum. I heard the PC version was getting upgraded graphics, so I waited for the PC version which coincidently was cheaper as well.
I was quite content with that.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Depends. I saved myself from getting Fallout 3 on the PS3 cause of the graphical comparisons. In other times, it's just inane when they compare the console to the PC. That's like comparing a hut to a fucking mansion.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Gameplay is much more important than graphics, but graphics matter too... Reviewers should just spend less time on graphics.

 

[Tharwen]

I think that graphics can be measured by their attempted quality versus their capability. Any game that tries too hard and can't deliver the graphics it tries to is bad.

 

[Tharwen]

Double post... Damn iPhone.

 

[TriggerHappyAngel]

yeah, i'm really sick and tired of that ... graphics come in last place for me, i find gameplay, story and music much more important.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Graphics... GRAPHICS?

I haven't bothered with that since the N64 was around, if the graphics are functional, don't hinder the gameplay, cause slow down or glitch, then the graphics are good enough. Fantastic graphics are a nice plus, but very much the secondary concern to gameplay and design.

 

[blankedboy]

I keep everything on medium-low graphics. I love having high texture quality, and resolution at 1024x768 or higher (mine's 1600x1050), but other than that I really don't care, mainly because having a higher framerate is more important to me.

More on-topic, no flamewars are any good, so why should the graphics one be any different?

 

[radred]

one of my fav games at the moment is camand and conquor red alert... thats right 8 bit graphics with a screen resolution of about 400x600. still a perfectly good game.
graphics add to the experiance but don't make or break a game.

 

[Robert632]

I think that graphics can be measured by their attempted quality versus their capability. Any game that tries too hard and can't deliver the graphics it tries to is bad.

This is a double post.

O.T:Yes,while graphics are somewht importent, we all know that if a game has the best graqphics that will ever be made in our lifetime, but the gameplay sucks ass through a straw,then the game is crap.

 

[wooty]

I'd say that the graphics comparisons are just for the fanboys to have yet more attempts at the old "my consoles better than yours because...." argument. Its not graphics that make the game, people still play old Mega Drive or NES games and still enjoy them despite it being very dated, it doesnt detract from the enjoyment as a whole.

Also, if people measure things by graphics power, then how does the Wii and DS sell so well? They're fun to play, thats why.