good graphics are impressive for example, ME2 graphics blow my mind. however, one of my favourite games is Gran Turismo 1 and if i was given the choice between that or ME2 GT would get my vote every time.
Poll: Do you give a crap about graphics?
- Thread starter TheRundownRabbit
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You know, I'm not going to lie and say that awesome graphics aren't great and a nice thing to have in a game, but there are a lot of more important things as far as I'm concerned.
Some of my favorite games are almost a decade old and obviously the graphics aren't very good but I keep going back to them because they're so much fun to play.
Some of my favorite games are almost a decade old and obviously the graphics aren't very good but I keep going back to them because they're so much fun to play.
I agree with this 100%... Look at Star Trek Online, in space, the graphics are amazing, it's done very well and it is in one word, spectacular. It looks very realistic and sleek, very sexy in my opinion. But, on the ground, the characters and buildings, items and environments are so poorly done it's shocking, in contract to space, it's vile. All the avatars look like their superhero counterparts in Champions Online, for me, the "cartoony" avatars and poor, sluggish animations totally destroy my immersion. So yes, graphics can sometimes make or break a game for me.generic gamer said:
It's an interesting dynamic, because while a lot of casual gamers are overly concerned with graphics, I think that the core gamers who view video games on the whole as a major hobby actually undervalue graphics. I will regularly see a good game be dismissed outright, based on the assumption that if a game has good graphics, it must have a terrible story and gameplay. This is just not true. Good graphic are pretty. They are also impressive, and enjoyable in there own right. They also give the game developer more options to make there vision come to life, more verisimilitude, a broader range of possibilities, and possible improvements to the core game itself (For example, better graphics means better, more blending Camouflage, opens up gameplay possibilities). Sure, great graphics and a terrible game underneath is a recipe for disaster, but Crysis, a solid and enjoyable shooter, is much better for being so pretty, and even a passable game can become memorable with awesome visuals (It just likely won't age well). So yes, I care about graphics, but it's dependent on the game, and what the game is trying to do.
Of course it does matter... BUT: Not so much for me as it seems like for others. I still play some thing on emulators. Nice 8-bit color 16x16 pixels graphics: No prob. If the game is heavy on storytelling and characterizations it is nice to have the graphics being able to convey emotions... but i don't need insanely photorealistic graphic for that. 2000-2005 style graphics are good enough for that too.
Overall i would like developers to ease up on that and shift their focus to more programmers and designer for AI, content, leveldesign etc.
Overall i would like developers to ease up on that and shift their focus to more programmers and designer for AI, content, leveldesign etc.
I care very much about graphics. That's why I spent money on a nice TV, a ps3, that's why I pay extra to get films on blu-ray.
I'm not saying bad graphics are a deal breaker, I still play the Max Payne games all the time, they're classics. But the majority of old games I would have trouble overlooking crappy textures and probably more importantly...awkward animations. I genuinely do enjoy films alot more when they're HD too.
I'm not saying bad graphics are a deal breaker, I still play the Max Payne games all the time, they're classics. But the majority of old games I would have trouble overlooking crappy textures and probably more importantly...awkward animations. I genuinely do enjoy films alot more when they're HD too.
Yeah i care about graphics, if a game in this day and age does not look good, then i find it hard to enjoy it as much, i can still like it but i will have a niggling feeling on how the game could have been just that little bit better with improved visuals. I found Resistance 2 difficult to enjoy becuase of how poor it looked, same with Dragon Age.
I will still happily play older games like KOTOR and Morrowind, as i can hardly blame those games for not looking next-gen. Anyway i considered them to have great graphics when they were released...
I will still happily play older games like KOTOR and Morrowind, as i can hardly blame those games for not looking next-gen. Anyway i considered them to have great graphics when they were released...
I don't think you're being fair. To some, not giving a crap could be perceived as "I'll play the game even if it looks like Pong!" I think graphics are good, but they don't need to be upgraded any more than they actually are. The current level is more than good enough for anyone with half an imagination, and those that don't can go back to watching the news and admiring Michael Atkinson.
If the only bad thing about a game is it's graphics then I'll still get it. If the graphics really did matter, then no one would like the SNES still.
Yes, they do matter to me. These are "video" games after all, and technology is meant to expand it's horizon, both graphically and in other means, like sophisticated sound.
However, these are not absolutes. Graphics and gameplay are mutually exclusive. It's one thing to prefer gameplay over graphics, which I mostly do, but it's another to say that graphics do not matter. I find the latter to be rather silly. There is no excuse these days to not be able to have some level of style or graphical eye candy, even if it's nothing amazing.
I've been playing Fallout 3 again, all modded out to my liking (on the PC obviously) and I recently downloaded a full texture pack, that replaces virtually everything. Making the textures, including the landscape, at least double in resolution. Very much worth it, and yes, it adds to the experience.
However, these are not absolutes. Graphics and gameplay are mutually exclusive. It's one thing to prefer gameplay over graphics, which I mostly do, but it's another to say that graphics do not matter. I find the latter to be rather silly. There is no excuse these days to not be able to have some level of style or graphical eye candy, even if it's nothing amazing.
I've been playing Fallout 3 again, all modded out to my liking (on the PC obviously) and I recently downloaded a full texture pack, that replaces virtually everything. Making the textures, including the landscape, at least double in resolution. Very much worth it, and yes, it adds to the experience.
For me the Low poly graphics just fell... more fun. Its like throwing around clods of dirt verses sand: the clods look like they hit their targets as you did see them fly with great gusto. So unless better graphics can improve on this felling, then I must say tone down the detail and give me some exploding digital legos.
I wish there was an "Other" option.
To me, partially. Animations should be fluent and smooth, and the graphics shouldn't be so bad that they interfere with gameplay. It's a bonus if the graphics are good, just not necessary.
So, I'd go with "Yes", simply because 50% rounded up is 100%, so w/e.
To me, partially. Animations should be fluent and smooth, and the graphics shouldn't be so bad that they interfere with gameplay. It's a bonus if the graphics are good, just not necessary.
So, I'd go with "Yes", simply because 50% rounded up is 100%, so w/e.
Bit of a weird question, as you said they do matter as obviously people are gonna be biased towards something that looks good rather than something that doesn't, but at the same time no. If the game itself is good than I won't mark it down simply on account of graphics, but I still note it.oveper said:
As far as games go it can, but doesn't necessarily matter, as much as the other aspects. If I was to play a game like fallout or oblivion with old 8 bit pixels I wouldn't be attracted to it cause the world would be so ugly and immersion is what attracted me to the game in the first place.
That's called texturing, and I think that DirectX 9 fixed that a little, but now DirectX 11 has full tesselation (meaning a bale of hay will now have hay sticking out here and there instead of a picture of a bale of hay pasted onto something that is shaped like a bale of hay)TheNamlessGuy said:
Anyway, good graphics are a crutch for bad developers who can't make the gameplay good, then have to rely on today's stupid gamer who goes for graphics first.
See Modern Warfare 2.
Graphics do help with the overall experience when playing a game, but bad graphics don't break a game. For me, what matters most is the gameplay itself.
They're important to a certain extent. It's hard to play a great game if I can't tell what the hell I'm looking at though. Also, there should be a middle ground for the poll.