do you care about game graphics ?
- Thread starter JMWahrer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I love the way people claim to only care about gameplay and then list games that had awesome graphics. 'Good graphics' does not just mean Crysis style number crunching, it entails strong art design, animation and use of colour. If you don't appreciate those qualities in a game you're not some kind of mega hardcore retro gamer, you're just a philistine.
One poster mentioned the original prince of Persia as an example of gameplay over graphics. Prince of Persia was lauded at the time for it's rotoscoped animation which is still fluid even by today's standards.
One poster mentioned the original prince of Persia as an example of gameplay over graphics. Prince of Persia was lauded at the time for it's rotoscoped animation which is still fluid even by today's standards.
To a point. I don't think they should be the most inportant thing in the game but I do know that they have to be decent if anyone plays it (after all, how can you play a game you can't stand looking at?)
Recently the graphics limitations of the Wii have become more noticeable to me, but I don't really care as much as I do game play and story.
Game Stuff: Games need WAY more than graphics, you need some depth, a good story or at least a solid outline of what is to be accomplished and how, good characters (or other equally interesting features if its an RTS or something) and you have to know how to market and create an atmosphere. Graphics are a small part of the larger picture.
System stuff: Graphics are good and all but its not a core part of a successful system, check out the game cube, games for the most part looked like crap but because of the audience, the large game catalog, nifty addons and fan support it was the first system to make any actual money, the PS2 and the Xbox started losing immediately and I still don't know if the X box ever turned a large profit.
System stuff: Graphics are good and all but its not a core part of a successful system, check out the game cube, games for the most part looked like crap but because of the audience, the large game catalog, nifty addons and fan support it was the first system to make any actual money, the PS2 and the Xbox started losing immediately and I still don't know if the X box ever turned a large profit.
As long as a game is fun and engaging, I wouldn't care if the characters were stick figures. Graphics have always been an afterthought for me, as often if a game is good I'm enjoying it so much I could care less if the shading is correct on the main characters armpits.
Well I say I do care about graphics but they aren't the most important thing. But I do expect new games to have good graphics because of all the technology put into graphics
What measure is graphics?
A million polygons for a human being means nothing if it is intended to move like a person but looks like a robot, but motion captured smoothness and realisim in animation is all the strength, even if the character is as simple as a few boxes and a ball for a head.
A million polygons for a human being means nothing if it is intended to move like a person but looks like a robot, but motion captured smoothness and realisim in animation is all the strength, even if the character is as simple as a few boxes and a ball for a head.