Do good graphics really matter?
- Thread starter Isla
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It depends. Does the graphics let me see hwat the dev wanted me to see or does it hinder what they're trying to do by having too fine details that dont' work on the machine?
If they made a great game, grahics dont' matter.
Look at Asteroids. NOt even the awful sound matters in that game cuz' it's just too much fun.
Guy above me mentioned UI.
Reminds me that Starcraft Broodwar is still a kick ass game, even with SC2 being a imagery badass.
If they made a great game, grahics dont' matter.
Look at Asteroids. NOt even the awful sound matters in that game cuz' it's just too much fun.
Guy above me mentioned UI.
Reminds me that Starcraft Broodwar is still a kick ass game, even with SC2 being a imagery badass.
First, I look for fun gameplay. You can do that with 8-bit graphics, or even monochrome.
Once the fun gameplay is rock solid, good graphics certainly look nice.
If good graphics are the focus or somehow detract from the game's length or performance, or increase the games cost and overall burden of production, then one needs to worry. If eye catching graphics and physics engines come first and foremost as a necessary step to impress teams of investors who know nothing of gameplay, we got problems.
Is it fair to say World of Warcraft is the most successful game of the decade? Has it consumed more hours of human life than any other paid title? If so, its graphics were, at best, just okay at release, and over its lifespan have gotten somewhat better but are still way behind the times. If mediocre graphics has the advantage of a larger world and better performance, it was a wise trade off, and mostly made up for by excellent art direction.
I have a hand-built gaming rig (and damn straight I hand built it to get the best graphical performance out of games) and a PS3, and mostly right now I'm playing games on the Playstation Portable, and half of those are remakes of earlier PS/PS2 games, and I'm having the most fun with gaming I've had in years.
Once the fun gameplay is rock solid, good graphics certainly look nice.
If good graphics are the focus or somehow detract from the game's length or performance, or increase the games cost and overall burden of production, then one needs to worry. If eye catching graphics and physics engines come first and foremost as a necessary step to impress teams of investors who know nothing of gameplay, we got problems.
Is it fair to say World of Warcraft is the most successful game of the decade? Has it consumed more hours of human life than any other paid title? If so, its graphics were, at best, just okay at release, and over its lifespan have gotten somewhat better but are still way behind the times. If mediocre graphics has the advantage of a larger world and better performance, it was a wise trade off, and mostly made up for by excellent art direction.
I have a hand-built gaming rig (and damn straight I hand built it to get the best graphical performance out of games) and a PS3, and mostly right now I'm playing games on the Playstation Portable, and half of those are remakes of earlier PS/PS2 games, and I'm having the most fun with gaming I've had in years.
If anything, overdone graphics can be a deterrent. The reason I bought Caesar 3 over Mass Effect 2 for christmas was because I had no doubt the former would run like a top and the latter would jitter like a dance craze.
They CAN be pretty to look at, but really, I only think you need enough to be able to clearly distinguish the basics well. I'm of the set opinion that the Fire Emblem GBA games were the best creations ever in this regard- spritework is highly underrated.
They CAN be pretty to look at, but really, I only think you need enough to be able to clearly distinguish the basics well. I'm of the set opinion that the Fire Emblem GBA games were the best creations ever in this regard- spritework is highly underrated.
They can.
Sometimes, I want a more stylized game, where graphics aren't a huge issue. I can play old sprite-graphics games and not bat an eye. Chrono Trigger is one of my favorite games of all time.
BUT, sometimes I do want a more realistic game, and if a game scrambles for advertising realism, the graphics better be able to back it up.
Let's face it- good as it was, if Red Dead Redemption looked like crap it wouldn't be nearly as immersive, and Oblivion is much more immersive after you mod it to make it look a bit better.
Sometimes, I want a more stylized game, where graphics aren't a huge issue. I can play old sprite-graphics games and not bat an eye. Chrono Trigger is one of my favorite games of all time.
BUT, sometimes I do want a more realistic game, and if a game scrambles for advertising realism, the graphics better be able to back it up.
Let's face it- good as it was, if Red Dead Redemption looked like crap it wouldn't be nearly as immersive, and Oblivion is much more immersive after you mod it to make it look a bit better.
To me it's just icing on the cake like music/SFX and voice acting, it just makes the game better. As for the cake bits it's made up of game play, story and programming and when one of them fail the cake really won't be that good. I mean you can have amazing graphics but it will mean nothing if the game is filled with bugs and the story line is hard to keep up with.
I'm hard pressed to find a current game I'm thrilled with like I was with the older games like Half-Life 1 or Ocarina of time. Yea I have found some I love that have good graphics like allot of BioWare and and Valves stuff and I love there older games too like KoTOR. But as I said good graphics just add to the quality but if the quality is crap then the graphics make it shinny crap.
I'm hard pressed to find a current game I'm thrilled with like I was with the older games like Half-Life 1 or Ocarina of time. Yea I have found some I love that have good graphics like allot of BioWare and and Valves stuff and I love there older games too like KoTOR. But as I said good graphics just add to the quality but if the quality is crap then the graphics make it shinny crap.
Summed it up perfectly. I'm surprised this question is still asked, much less on a weekly basis.Jandau said:
Good graphics will ALWAYS matter and always be important, but "good" does not necessarily mean "photorealistic." Mass Effect 2, for example, is not as realistic as Crysis but it has incredible artistic design and style.
It really depends on the games art style and genre. if a FPS had awful graphics, it would become unplayable, whereas a story heavy RPG can forego certain visual enhancements to allow for more content. It could also be argued that some games have such outlandish art styles that better graphics would have ruined it. Imagine Okami without the chunky black outlines!
It really helps with immersion. Graphics should never be top priority, but it is important to be able to know what's going on.
(Capatcha: molecule frocce)
(Capatcha: molecule frocce)
They matter alot to me.
Graphical prowess is the difference between Metro 2033 being an interesting game, and being a game that gives me chills.
Furthermore, if I buy Crysis 2...it'll be in hope that it'll stress my GPU before it'll be for the gameplay, though I am still awaiting reviews.
Graphical prowess is the difference between Metro 2033 being an interesting game, and being a game that gives me chills.
Furthermore, if I buy Crysis 2...it'll be in hope that it'll stress my GPU before it'll be for the gameplay, though I am still awaiting reviews.
Well to me, Good Graphics means, that they are functional within the game, and make it easy to see what is going on, and what needs to be done and ideally fills the game with atmosphere. Other than that I think art style is more important than poly-count, a unique art style leaves a big impression on me, it just makes the game really memorable, ie: Kirby's Dreamland 3, Okami, Odin Sphere.
So yeah Graphics are important seeing as without them we couldn't SEE. But if that's all a game has, and it's graphics aren't serving the greater purpose of assisting gameplay at that point I would say that the emphasis on graphics has become too much.
So yeah Graphics are important seeing as without them we couldn't SEE. But if that's all a game has, and it's graphics aren't serving the greater purpose of assisting gameplay at that point I would say that the emphasis on graphics has become too much.
it depends on the game, I think getting decent graphics isn't that hard, if someone has limitations, they should count that in and have some kind of clever idea to address that (like amnesia: enemys aren't that well-detailed, but you can't really see it because if you would they would claw your face off, or minecraft: the graphics just add to the charm)
and as for $100 million budget realistic ps3 esclusive shooter, they have money, so they have no excuse for bad graphics, thought that will be outdated within a few years
and yes itt matters, I just played max payne 1 a few days ago and I were just so annoyed that max payne's face was allways having that smirk, even when getting shot, shooting, or seeing that his wife and child died
and as for $100 million budget realistic ps3 esclusive shooter, they have money, so they have no excuse for bad graphics, thought that will be outdated within a few years
and yes itt matters, I just played max payne 1 a few days ago and I were just so annoyed that max payne's face was allways having that smirk, even when getting shot, shooting, or seeing that his wife and child died
there are three main factors that usually go into games: story, graphics, and gameplay. In my opinion story and gameplay are neck and neck with gameplay a little out in front. If one of those two are somewhat lacking while the other is still above average, I will still play the game to either further enjoy the gameplay or see what happens in the story.
Graphics are more of a tie-breaker with games. If you judged by graphics and art-style, then Fable 3 would be a great game. However, as it stands, it is lacking in both gameplay and story in which no amount of pretty pixels can make up for.
I will conclude by saying that if graphics really mattered than most of the indie games that I hold dear to me would be considered bad, despite having fun gameplay or an amusing story. So I say that graphics matter only as a tie-breaker to games with both equally good story and gameplay.
Graphics are more of a tie-breaker with games. If you judged by graphics and art-style, then Fable 3 would be a great game. However, as it stands, it is lacking in both gameplay and story in which no amount of pretty pixels can make up for.
I will conclude by saying that if graphics really mattered than most of the indie games that I hold dear to me would be considered bad, despite having fun gameplay or an amusing story. So I say that graphics matter only as a tie-breaker to games with both equally good story and gameplay.
They do but its the gameplay that counts most. I still get addicted to old classics I discover or to too many to count indie jewels out there.
Good graphics are a great thing. They can help with immersion, open up gameplay mechanics, options, and feedback, and can be appreciated in their own right. The fact that some games focus of graphics and also happen to be bad do not necessarily mean that graphics were focused on at the expense of gameplay.