I draw the line at system shock 2 but most graphics don't change whether I'll play a game or not. It's mostly to do with if the game is fun... something developers don't realize much these days.
Do graphics decide what games YOU buy?
- Thread starter Kruxxor
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't know. Each game I can buy on the PC has nice graphics. That said, I haven't bought older games. I do know that I will not play Baldur's Gate II or Diablo II, because the graphics turn me down too much.
As far as I'm concerned, they can make a good game great, but they can't make a bad game good. I spend a lot of my gaming time playing 8-bit indie games and retro games on emulators. High-end graphics can enhance the overal game, but not by any means essential.
Graphic shouldn't really matter. Back in the old old days of 8-bit and 16-bit consoles, you had to engage your imagination to believe that the collection of blocky dots really was eating all the little blocky dots and fleeing the might-be-a-ghost blocky dots. Or imagining that the blocky dots with the gun for an arm really was going to save the world this time, not die from a meaningless blocky dot that passed too close by -- but didn't hit -- your blocky dots. Does anyone remember when the blocky dots were ambiguous enough that an unlocked achievement of completing Metroid let you know that Samus was female, curvy dots?
So when you're looking at cinematic-style visuals, motion blurred radiosity rendering and bump-mapped surfaces, are you more engrossed by the visuals? Only if you have the super-high resolution and super-large screen. Which most regular posters here may well do. I don't, because playing games for me needs other people in the room with playing me, or a good story that allows me to pretend to be in the world of the game. Anyone who says that graphics add immersion is being sold the lie that keeps nVidia and ATi rich with upgrades, upgrades and upgrades. Graphics mostly add shiny, and that shine is lost when the game is no longer a new experience, or more shiny appears and draws in the magpies. So for that reason, graphics are way down the list, almost below the black mark that is subscription-like downloadable upgrades to the game as it should have been first sold...
K3n.
So when you're looking at cinematic-style visuals, motion blurred radiosity rendering and bump-mapped surfaces, are you more engrossed by the visuals? Only if you have the super-high resolution and super-large screen. Which most regular posters here may well do. I don't, because playing games for me needs other people in the room with playing me, or a good story that allows me to pretend to be in the world of the game. Anyone who says that graphics add immersion is being sold the lie that keeps nVidia and ATi rich with upgrades, upgrades and upgrades. Graphics mostly add shiny, and that shine is lost when the game is no longer a new experience, or more shiny appears and draws in the magpies. So for that reason, graphics are way down the list, almost below the black mark that is subscription-like downloadable upgrades to the game as it should have been first sold...
K3n.
Graphics mean nothing, if they were to release the best FPS ever, with doom graphics, I would never stop playing it, graphics are secondary, always, to gameplay.
In a way, yes it does. Is it the final factor in a decision? Absolutely not.
Someone else said it best:
It's more likely to affect my decision with a newer or updated version of a title. I enjoyed the first and second Call of Duty and never tried the fifth. If I happened to lose my copies of those and was in the mood for a historical WWII FPS, I'll probably try World at War instead of repurchase the new titles.
In the end, graphics only completely reel me in if it is a graphically superior version of another identical game. WWII shooters are almost all the same. If I was in the mood for an online tactical shooter, Counter-Strike: Source simply looks better to me than Counter-Strike 1.5, and there are also no cheap shields. They are the exact same game, just different in looks and engine style. Incidentally I'm more likely to play the Resident Evil remake than play the original. The graphical superiority helps me relive the immersion of horror that I experienced in 1996. Well...every now and then I'll play the original just for the hilariously bad dialogue.
But in the end, it's gameplay that counts. I own Crysis and it is arguably the best looking game on the market. Yet, I have never played it all the way through. However this month I logged probably 36 hours on Half-Life 2, which is nearly five years old. Yesterday, I booted up the original Half-Life.
And every now and then I boot up the old Atari 5200, and play Pong with my parents.
Someone else said it best:
When browsing through new titles, I look at many things. Good graphics show an attention to detail. The attention to detail demonstrates that the modelers put a lot of work into the game and point that the rest possibly could have. But in the end I try a demo and see if the gameplay is worth the same.ElArabDeMagnifico said:
It's more likely to affect my decision with a newer or updated version of a title. I enjoyed the first and second Call of Duty and never tried the fifth. If I happened to lose my copies of those and was in the mood for a historical WWII FPS, I'll probably try World at War instead of repurchase the new titles.
In the end, graphics only completely reel me in if it is a graphically superior version of another identical game. WWII shooters are almost all the same. If I was in the mood for an online tactical shooter, Counter-Strike: Source simply looks better to me than Counter-Strike 1.5, and there are also no cheap shields. They are the exact same game, just different in looks and engine style. Incidentally I'm more likely to play the Resident Evil remake than play the original. The graphical superiority helps me relive the immersion of horror that I experienced in 1996. Well...every now and then I'll play the original just for the hilariously bad dialogue.
But in the end, it's gameplay that counts. I own Crysis and it is arguably the best looking game on the market. Yet, I have never played it all the way through. However this month I logged probably 36 hours on Half-Life 2, which is nearly five years old. Yesterday, I booted up the original Half-Life.
And every now and then I boot up the old Atari 5200, and play Pong with my parents.
Well, it will probably mean I will enjoy it more, but it's not crucial when asking if I will buy it or not. Honestly, the graphics I like in a game should be colourful and impacting, not gun metal grey or dogshit brown 
. EG: I was once playing L4D at school (no shit, with my 360) and a friend saw that and asked me "What year is this from?" so I just said last year and he started commenting on how crappy the graphics looked, all to which I could reply yes, but I get to kill zombies and you don't. Same thing happens with Halo 3, to be honest. The graphics are very colourful, and they really do stand out, specially with all the blue explosions. But even so, many of the grittier sections of the game still have some very interesting sights. So, indeed, I enjoy god graphics in a game, but it won't be determinant at the hour of truth
. EG: I was once playing L4D at school (no shit, with my 360) and a friend saw that and asked me "What year is this from?" so I just said last year and he started commenting on how crappy the graphics looked, all to which I could reply yes, but I get to kill zombies and you don't. Same thing happens with Halo 3, to be honest. The graphics are very colourful, and they really do stand out, specially with all the blue explosions. But even so, many of the grittier sections of the game still have some very interesting sights. So, indeed, I enjoy god graphics in a game, but it won't be determinant at the hour of truth
Definately not. I love games no matter the graphics - Some of my favourite games ever are pre year 2000 and that was when High Definition Gaming wasnt exactly everywhere.
