Not really, it can certantly add to a game, but most of the time I find that it can take away from a game if all there is to do it look at the pretty scenery.
Do you care about graphics?
- Thread starter pulse2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I absolutely think graphics matter, but they're definitely not the most important aspect of the game (storytelling and gameplay take that spot). However, I do appreciate when a game has an appealing visual style or top of the line visuals as oftentimes it adds a lot to the experience.
For example, the original Spyro the Dragon may not have all the graphical bells and whistles of today, but it has a very appealing graphical style that compliments the gameplay. Same goes for Crysis. They made the game look and play very realistically, yet it doesn't take away from the gameplay in the slightest. If anything, it makes the game even more immersive.
For example, the original Spyro the Dragon may not have all the graphical bells and whistles of today, but it has a very appealing graphical style that compliments the gameplay. Same goes for Crysis. They made the game look and play very realistically, yet it doesn't take away from the gameplay in the slightest. If anything, it makes the game even more immersive.
I don't care if graphics are dated or even bad, as long as they aren't ugly. I remember I stopped playing Red Steel on the wii partially because... well it was fucking terrible, but the graphics were just unbearable. If there was a pile of rubble it looked like a hardened pile of vomit. if a character was wearing dull colors he blended into the wall. Even though it technically has better graphics than say, the N64 Zelda games, it's less tolerable to look at because of the way everything is designed.
One of my favorite games for console was Dragon Age Origins.....funny enough this game had, shall we say, less than stellar graphics. Personally graphics are #2 or #3 for me take Battlefield Bad Company 2 for example...yes many modern FPS games show more detail etc...but the game is friggen fun as hell even without being able to see every wrinkle in the enemies uniform.
Good graphics matter to me but usually it comes down to art style. The original Ratchet and Clank still is visually intriguing because the developers knew how to construct an art style that would stand the test of time.
I belong to a rare species who doesn't care about graphics if the premise is interesting (for me at least). Don't mind looking at stunning visuals but it's not the thing that sparks my interest.
I've been investing in PS2/PS1 and Xbox games lately because I got painfully bored of what's been gracing the current-gen systems in the past months. Got myself 'Vagrant Story', 'Echo Night','Yakuza' and 'Yakuza 2' - and am more involved in these than in anything I've played in 2010.
There's a common habit to linking good graphics with a good game - which is wrong.
I've been investing in PS2/PS1 and Xbox games lately because I got painfully bored of what's been gracing the current-gen systems in the past months. Got myself 'Vagrant Story', 'Echo Night','Yakuza' and 'Yakuza 2' - and am more involved in these than in anything I've played in 2010.
There's a common habit to linking good graphics with a good game - which is wrong.
I care about graphics, but they aren't the be-all and end-all when it comes to my gaming. Gameplay and narrative are what I truly care about, pretty looks are just a nice bonus really.
You don't want to know if I care, you want me to confirm gameplay and story trump graphics, and I don't want to have do that again, because I have simply lost count of the number of times I have.
So I'm going to answer your question, and only your question, do I care about graphics?
Yes.
So I'm going to answer your question, and only your question, do I care about graphics?
Yes.
Oh no, no I wasn't stating that those games mentioned by any means had bad graphics, but when you compare the amount of detail put into say Gears of War compared to Locoroco, you can tell the obvious difference between graphical achievements, but that still seperates gameplay fun, the question you might ask is that if all gamers hypothetically thought the same way and believed Locoroco and Gears were in the same league of fun as each other, would Epic bother spending so much time and dedication on polygons and textures etc, facial expressions and lighting?Mike Laserbeam said:Well Halo: Combat Evolved came out before TimeSplitters 2 (After TS1 though) but if it was after Halo 2 you played it at least in 2004, which wasn't too long after I played it first (2003 probably). But are you saying that Halo 2 looks much better than TS2 does? I would say that if it did at all it wasn't by much, so I'm not entirely sure of your point there...pulse2 said:
Also, are you saying that Locoroco and Angry Birds have bad graphics? I would disagree there too, obviously their graphical content isn't on the same level as GT5 or something, but it's not like they're bad looking games. Although I see how you could be saying that they're not graphically focused like some recent games (Despite most of the charm of Locoroco being in the way it looks)
I understand your argument entirely, game content is much more important than the way it looks, but I also think that it is important for a new game to be able to hold up to the standards of its time.
I by all means thought Halo and Halo 2 looked better than TS2 and 3, but I think that was more so because of the level design and atmosphere than character models, nitty gritty details like textures, lighting, immersivness, etc. That's not to say that TS2 and 3 didn't look pretty in thier own right, but it was a more cartoony level of beauty. Still, I appreciated both for what they were and loved them all the same.
When I talk, I'm mostly referring to gameplay elements I enjoy rather than the graphical quality.
I do care about graphics, but NOT for judging a game, but just because I like it when my games look pretty. This actually only applies to computer games (meaning, can my computer handle the graphics). Other than that, no graphics aren't all that important to me. They help, but rarely do they effect gameplay. That's not saying that more powerful graphics don't equal more options FOR gameplay. Do you honestly think all of these cinematic moments in video games would be possible a few years ago? Maybe, but with no where near the impact.
I care about the style that it delivers more than mere graphical strength or prowess. Never caught on to Final Fantasy after VI since the art just annoyed me, I tried playing FF XIII but they cranked that shit up to 11 on that game when it came to overall annoying art and character design.
Plus, I've logged god knows how many hours on Minecraft. Which speaks for itself.
Plus, I've logged god knows how many hours on Minecraft. Which speaks for itself.
As long as it isn't an eyesore (and therefore completely destroying immersion) I'm good. Story and gameplay can compensate.
Graphics don't matter if the game sucks, that's how I see it, if I can tell what I'm looking at is what its supposed to look like, then its all good.