Okay this is really starting to annoy me

[shadowsandwich]

So i was just surfing through Youtube watching some game reviews when i heard the age old saying "graphics dont make a game" which i agree but they always talk about the capabilities of the system itself and this is what i really hate.

Yes i understand that graphics are better on systems that can process them better but that's beacuse they offer more creative freedom i dont care if a game looks "Retro" or "Advanced 3d" i only care about the quality!

I mean think back the the Nes nobody complains about the graphics on that unless it's a bad game beacuse the graphics are actually judged more on how thay are drawn instead of how many "simultanious" colours so why is it now that everyone talks about how "the Wii graphics suck" instead of "the graphics in Wii games suck" i ask you?

 

[valleyshrew]

Because games are realistic looking now, graphics are more important than they used to be where every game was pixelart or cartoony. Most games have realistic graphics. How can you compare fifa on wii to fifa on ps3/360 without mentioning how much worse the graphics are? It's what you look at the whole time, of course graphics are important. That's why almost all highly rated wii games are cartoony, because graphics matter less in those. I think those who say "graphics aren't important" are gamings worst snobs. It's not wrong to prefer good graphics.

 

[DrgoFx]

I don't judge a game by graphics. We're in a day and age where we have numerous systems and all with different specs, even a single system that has countless possibilities for specs [pc]. If a game looks good, that's all it needs in visuals. If a game's visuals can bring you into its world and work with the "story" and the gameplay, then that's a wonderous game you have there. Because we've been presented with so many photo-realistic games, games are beginning to be judged more on how they look. Is it right? Well no. Amnesia doesn't have the world's greatest graphics and yet it's widely considered the scariest game in modern days.

With that said, I don't own a Wii. I don't think it's a terrible system, but there aren't that many games that make me want to own one...Aside from Skyward Sword. That game looks so fun.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I mean think back the the Nes nobody complains about the graphics on that unless it's a bad game beacuse the graphics are actually judged more on how thay are drawn instead of how many "simultanious" colours so why is it now that everyone talks about how "the Wii graphics suck" instead of "the graphics in Wii games suck" i ask you?

I'm not too sure.
Remember those gaming magazines back in the day? They used to list the various qualities of a game and rate them separately but graphics were always at the top of the list while gameplay was always somewhere in the middle.
I never understood that.
Personally, I don't care what a game looks like, as long as its fun.
Look at how big a hit minecraft is and at first glance it looks like its running off a nes.

 

[Phishfood]

Because games are realistic looking now, graphics are more important than they used to be where every game was pixelart or cartoony. Most games have realistic graphics. How can you compare fifa on wii to fifa on ps3/360 without mentioning how much worse the graphics are? It's what you look at the whole time, of course graphics are important. That's why almost all highly rated wii games are cartoony, because graphics matter less in those. I think those who say "graphics aren't important" are gamings worst snobs. It's not wrong to prefer good graphics.

I half agree with you. Good graphics make a game better. Otherwise identical games will be better on PC/PS3/Xbox than wii. What people are saying when they say graphics don't matter however, is that it is perfectly possible to have a great game WITHOUT good graphics. I still think X-Com is one of the best strategy games in existence and that has pixel graphics. On the other hand, I found crysis quite a boring game despite having the best graphics ever seen at the time.

Graphics can make a good game great, they can't make a crap game good.

 

[distortedreality]

I don't judge a game by the visuals, but I much prefer to look at pretty things than ugly things.

I still do the odd play through of Deus Ex (which looked bad enough when it was released, it hasn't gotten any better with age), so if the game play is there, the looks aren't a huge issue. BUT i'll also sometimes fire up a game that is great to look at but terrible to play (i.e Far Cry 2/Crysis) just to get a fill of eye candy.

 

[Scarim Coral]

We're pretty much spoil for choices now and the younger generation don't understand what it was like back in the 80's and 90's. I mean you're right about the NES since the NES and the other consoles had similar amount of bits therefore there were little amount of comparison can be said about it.

 

[TheLastSamurai14]

Because games are realistic looking now, graphics are more important than they used to be where every game was pixelart or cartoony. Most games have realistic graphics. How can you compare fifa on wii to fifa on ps3/360 without mentioning how much worse the graphics are? It's what you look at the whole time, of course graphics are important. That's why almost all highly rated wii games are cartoony, because graphics matter less in those. I think those who say "graphics aren't important" are gamings worst snobs. It's not wrong to prefer good graphics.

I think you've hit the nail right on the head. The majority of games on the Wii, along with some PS3 and 360 games, tend to go for a more stylized look, instead of a photorealistic look that people expect. It's easier to pull off and looks just as good from a slightly different state of mind. But if you don't have the tech to do photorealism, and do it anyway, that's when people say it sucks, as is the case of some photorealistic Wii games.

Hell, I'll link two Extra Credits episodes for anyone interested in what I'm talking about.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-uncanny-valley

 

[LordFisheh]

As fashionable as it may be to go on about how graphics mean nothing, I think they do. They don't mean everything, and gameplay/story come first. But there's something to be said for playing something that does look really, really nice. Conversely there are old games that I just can't get into, despite being 'classics' or whatever, because ye olde isometric view just makes them a chore to look at. Perhaps it's not graphics alone though, visuals might be a better term. Art design goes a long way. WoW, for example, looks great despite bad textures and a 6 year old engine because the art is so well done.

 

[TheGreatAndPowerfulZOG]

I actually find more photorealistic graphics to be uglier than stylized, even cartoony, graphics. The uncanny valley is a long way from being crossed.

 

[krazykidd]

Because games are realistic looking now, graphics are more important than they used to be where every game was pixelart or cartoony. Most games have realistic graphics. How can you compare fifa on wii to fifa on ps3/360 without mentioning how much worse the graphics are? It's what you look at the whole time, of course graphics are important. That's why almost all highly rated wii games are cartoony, because graphics matter less in those. I think those who say "graphics aren't important" are gamings worst snobs. It's not wrong to prefer good graphics.

What are they snobing ? How did you come to that conclusion? Am i a snob because i think there are more important things than graphics? A game could have amazing graphics , but shitty gameplay and it would still be a bad game ( a beautiful bad game ). A game could have terrible graphics but have amazing gameplay and it could still be a good game ( like minecraft , although there is no story ).

If you want great graphics and no depth to your games so be it , but don't call people snobs because they think there is more to video games than graphics . Ideally a game should have good graphics and good gameplay and good story but i wouldn't dismiss a game due to lack of meeting the graphical standard . But give me a game that looks good and plays like shit and i will not play it .

 

[lord.jeff]

Graphics are part of the experience, not the most important part but they still help the game's immersion and atmosphere quite a bit.

 

[Broken Orange]

What annoys me is purposely vague title so people have to click on the links to see what they're taking about.

 

[Epona]

So i was just surfing through Youtube watching some game reviews when i heard the age old saying "graphics dont make a game" which i agree but they always talk about the capabilities of the system itself and this is what i really hate.

Yes i understand that graphics are better on systems that can process them better but that's beacuse they offer more creative freedom i dont care if a game looks "Retro" or "Advanced 3d" i only care about the quality!

I mean think back the the Nes nobody complains about the graphics on that unless it's a bad game beacuse the graphics are actually judged more on how thay are drawn instead of how many "simultanious" colours so why is it now that everyone talks about how "the Wii graphics suck" instead of "the graphics in Wii games suck" i ask you?

In it's time, the NES had the best graphics around. In it's time, the Wii has the worst graphics around.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Because games are realistic looking now, graphics are more important than they used to be where every game was pixelart or cartoony. Most games have realistic graphics. How can you compare fifa on wii to fifa on ps3/360 without mentioning how much worse the graphics are? It's what you look at the whole time, of course graphics are important. That's why almost all highly rated wii games are cartoony, because graphics matter less in those. I think those who say "graphics aren't important" are gamings worst snobs. It's not wrong to prefer good graphics.

Well I guess that makes me a bit of a snob XD

To me, graphics aren't important. Could care less if it looks cartoony or gritty-realistic.


Now... Aesthetics on the other hand...

If its cartoony, than the game needs to be treated in a cartoony way to match the aesthetics, or super serious (like naughty bear) to induce the hilarity of the aesthetics.

kinda get where I'm going?


Back to the topic: Just define what's graphics and what's aesthetics when they're talking about that stuff. Graphics aren't important, they never will be IMO, but when they're talking about the aesthetics, it can sound like they're talking about the graphics. So try to be able to tell the difference and pay attention to what they say, as info on aesthetics can make a big difference in what kind of game you're going for.