I think all fps would be fucked up with low graphics. I would probably hit the air and I would get a headshot. we need good graphics.
Poll: Do high end graphics take more than they give?
- Thread starter Kpt._Rob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nice graphics are a nice bonus but that's it. I'm not a fan of ASCII graphics and the really primitive graphics but I'd be happy to play Doom again even if I'd prefer to have ZDoom installed so I can bump up the resolution.
When it comes to older games controls are usually what causes problems for me. Anything with a first person perspective that doesn't have mouselook is very awkward. Games like Doom I can usually get used to but I tried Hexen II recently and the funky mouselook just killed it for me.
When it comes to older games controls are usually what causes problems for me. Anything with a first person perspective that doesn't have mouselook is very awkward. Games like Doom I can usually get used to but I tried Hexen II recently and the funky mouselook just killed it for me.
Although I know that graphics are a bonus, having a $400 GPU stickin' out of the side of my motherboard is making me feel a little bit biased.
Graphics aren't everything, but I do feel that there are not many games out there that couldn't be improved with a bit of a graphical overhaul (SWAT, AVP2, etc). And I will say with pride that NEW games, with MASSIVE budgets that don't come with some of the most basic graphics options for PC (This seems to be a growing problem for anti-aliasing recently, I'm looking at you, mass effect 2, saboteur, Starcraft 2) DOES piss me off a little bit.
The best way for me to try and describe my feelings towards graphics is...
I can put up with bad/simplistic graphics as long as there is a REASON for it. As long as there is a reason, I have no problem, the only reason the games mentioned earlier annoyed me was because I had to go through quite a bit of trouble, changing driver setting, downloading custom nHancer profiles etc to get the features I wanted working, and when I did get them working, they worked PERFECTLY.
So if I can get them working with a little bit of a fuss, how can it be so hard for huge developers like Blizzard or Bioware to get them working from the start?
The answer = Laziness.
Graphics aren't everything, but I do feel that there are not many games out there that couldn't be improved with a bit of a graphical overhaul (SWAT, AVP2, etc). And I will say with pride that NEW games, with MASSIVE budgets that don't come with some of the most basic graphics options for PC (This seems to be a growing problem for anti-aliasing recently, I'm looking at you, mass effect 2, saboteur, Starcraft 2) DOES piss me off a little bit.
The best way for me to try and describe my feelings towards graphics is...
I can put up with bad/simplistic graphics as long as there is a REASON for it. As long as there is a reason, I have no problem, the only reason the games mentioned earlier annoyed me was because I had to go through quite a bit of trouble, changing driver setting, downloading custom nHancer profiles etc to get the features I wanted working, and when I did get them working, they worked PERFECTLY.
So if I can get them working with a little bit of a fuss, how can it be so hard for huge developers like Blizzard or Bioware to get them working from the start?
The answer = Laziness.
I'm really picky about lag (and I also don't like dropping $1000 on a graphics card), so I tend to drop the graphics on most new games to about medium. At that level, they're still way pretty if the environment has been well designed - certainly pretty enough to be immersive if the gameplay and writing are good enough.
Basically, Oblivion's graphics were pretty much as good as I need. If you take that level of graphics and create something worth looking at, it's more than enough.
Basically, Oblivion's graphics were pretty much as good as I need. If you take that level of graphics and create something worth looking at, it's more than enough.
I love retro games and often get nostalgia. At the same time, I love today's graphics. Some games *cough* Crysis *cough* concentrate too much on graphics and less on innovation of game play and mechanics.
As I was typing that, I was thinking about Enslaved after watching the video supplement recently.MiracleOfSound said:
Here we have a "post apocolypse" setting, but the art direction transforms a typically dreary and washed out world into a melding of verdant plant life conquering decrepit metal and ruins. The visual style is a refreshing and incredible direction that is greatly enhanced by the amount of detail that can be poured into every scene during gameplay.
Another example of polished graphics mentioned earlier is Ratchet and Clank. The first time I saw one of them for the PS3, it looked like it was on par with a lively CGI film. The PS2 may have claimed to have "Toy Story graphics," but this generation, we can actually play something akin to that level of crisp detail.
Were it not for the upgrades in graphics with the technology available, it would not be feasible to portray a "realistic" or believable game world using dated, blocky graphics that we have come to see as outdated. For instance, the intro to Bioshock, what with its incredible water and lighting effe would not have carried the same impact if it were in PS2 graphics capabilities.
Agreed OP. I'd like to also link to another of Shamus' articles that explains this issue:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6069-Death-to-Good-Graphics
Good graphics aren't bad, but there needs to be some actual substance to back them up, otherwise they're boring games that no one will want to buy. Or can buy since your graphics requirements are so damn high.
I've been playing quite a bit of last-gen games, and Planescape Torment. They all look fine, and Torment has environments that are easily far more beautiful than anything on the market right now.
Timesplitters looks great and runs well, and I'm sure if the games were re-released on the PC damn near everyone could run them, and run them well and experience the greatest games ever made(seriously, I would pay any amount of money for a new Timesplitters game, re-release or otherwise).
Point is. Just stop improving graphics, keep them as they are right now. Over time more people will be able to catch up, the devs will learn how to use the tech better, making development cheaper and faster, and also allow them to do much more with other areas of the game, like gameplay. And more people would be able to buy and play them, which means more profit.
Whenever I talk to people and ask them if their a PC gamer, they all say "my PC can't handle it". They never say "no, it looks lame, I don't want to get into it" or "no, my consoles fine for me right now"(ok, a few do say those things, but very few). People seem to want to be PC gamers, its just this giant fucking graphics barrier blocks them off from it.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6069-Death-to-Good-Graphics
Good graphics aren't bad, but there needs to be some actual substance to back them up, otherwise they're boring games that no one will want to buy. Or can buy since your graphics requirements are so damn high.
I've been playing quite a bit of last-gen games, and Planescape Torment. They all look fine, and Torment has environments that are easily far more beautiful than anything on the market right now.
Timesplitters looks great and runs well, and I'm sure if the games were re-released on the PC damn near everyone could run them, and run them well and experience the greatest games ever made(seriously, I would pay any amount of money for a new Timesplitters game, re-release or otherwise).
Point is. Just stop improving graphics, keep them as they are right now. Over time more people will be able to catch up, the devs will learn how to use the tech better, making development cheaper and faster, and also allow them to do much more with other areas of the game, like gameplay. And more people would be able to buy and play them, which means more profit.
Whenever I talk to people and ask them if their a PC gamer, they all say "my PC can't handle it". They never say "no, it looks lame, I don't want to get into it" or "no, my consoles fine for me right now"(ok, a few do say those things, but very few). People seem to want to be PC gamers, its just this giant fucking graphics barrier blocks them off from it.
I play minecraft. It's fun.
I play world of warcraft. Still running off the same engine they've had since 2004. Still fun.
I play old-school late 90s PC games and early 2000s, and I love them all.
It would be nice if the mainstream titles didn't use the absolute best graphics all the time and focused more on gameplay and story, but then it wouldn't be mainstream.
I play world of warcraft. Still running off the same engine they've had since 2004. Still fun.
I play old-school late 90s PC games and early 2000s, and I love them all.
It would be nice if the mainstream titles didn't use the absolute best graphics all the time and focused more on gameplay and story, but then it wouldn't be mainstream.
My enjoyment of a game depends on how bad the graphics are.
That said, I LOVE Minecraft because the graphics aren't bad. They're fun to look at and the blocky style makes sense. I guess my graphic judgment is weird.
So, here are:
<spoiler=Bad graphics>
http://diceofdoom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/dwarffortress-big.png
http://ui19.gamefaqs.com/1042/gfs_49160_2_1.jpg
<spoiler=Okay graphics>
http://www.glidos.net/large/sphinx.jpg
http://www.quakewiki.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/minecraft-4.png
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/803/803187/halo-3-20070711001713324.jpg
<spoiler=Good graphics>
http://caterwauls.ca/new_page_11_files/Uru.jpg
http://www.justpushstart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Shadow-of-the-colossus.jpg
http://www.theaveragegamer.com/wp-content/Screenshots/Psychonauts/Psychonauts%20-%20Doors.jpg
Do my tastes make sense, at least?
That said, I LOVE Minecraft because the graphics aren't bad. They're fun to look at and the blocky style makes sense. I guess my graphic judgment is weird.
So, here are:
<spoiler=Bad graphics>
http://diceofdoom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/dwarffortress-big.png
http://ui19.gamefaqs.com/1042/gfs_49160_2_1.jpg
<spoiler=Okay graphics>
http://www.glidos.net/large/sphinx.jpg
http://www.quakewiki.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/minecraft-4.png
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/803/803187/halo-3-20070711001713324.jpg
<spoiler=Good graphics>
http://caterwauls.ca/new_page_11_files/Uru.jpg
http://www.justpushstart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Shadow-of-the-colossus.jpg
http://www.theaveragegamer.com/wp-content/Screenshots/Psychonauts/Psychonauts%20-%20Doors.jpg
Do my tastes make sense, at least?
The way I see it, great graphics should complement great gameplay, and vice versa. They should work together pretty much.
To use an overused line, graphics=icing and gameplay=cake.
No-one's going to deny that icing on the cake augments it, but if you had 4 dollars to spend on making a cake you shouldn't be spending 3 dollars on icing and 1 dollar on cake.
"Cake is a lie" inbound!
No-one's going to deny that icing on the cake augments it, but if you had 4 dollars to spend on making a cake you shouldn't be spending 3 dollars on icing and 1 dollar on cake.
"Cake is a lie" inbound!