Since when did graphics become the main point of a game.
- Thread starter Andey
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually, I think it started with the move to 3D. Once you have people oooing and ahhhing that their character is lo longer bound by left, right, up, and down, the only thing people are going to be looking for is how much more real they can make it. It's only after so many companies have invested so much money in that pursuit that they realize that graphics aren't necessarily worth it if you detract from gameplay. Hell, look at Brawl- just as 2D as the SNES games, and still one of the most popular franchises in video games. Now, that's not to say that if you don't sacrifice graphics for gameplay or story, you can't still get a good game, but if everything's devoted to making a game pretty, that's all it's going to be- pretty.
Back from the beginning of pong, graphics has always been advancing to the next progression of "holy cr@p, that looks really good", and the current graphics where the inevitable next progression. the only thing the new "generation" of consoles offer is better hardware to run the better graphics. The problem is that the visuals has reached a peak in which it requires alot of work to get games up to par and look good. Some people don't realize how expensive it is to make current generation games with such stellar graphics, and each screw up and blunder could lose millions of dollars. That has made producers scared to try something bold and new, which ironically, gets them more in the whole because no one wants more of the same. The reason why games look bad now is that it's the dawning of a new era of gaming. What your going to see is a new era of gaming in which we have small-time, independent, unique games from small time people, such like the ones on the XBL marketplace or PSN, and then you'll have large companies producing new games, which yes, some will be fairly generic with a number at the end, but the smart companies will see that gamers don't want generic and make new and unique games, or sequels to the successful ones, most likely grabbing some great ideas from market place creators and paying them bags of cash. So i say wait it, new and better games will be on the horizon (AC2, Bioshock 2, MW 2)
Colecovision/Intellivision: LOOK AT US! OUR GRAPHICS ARE MUCH BETTER THEN THE ATARI! SUCK ON IT ATARI!!
Sega Genesis: FUCK YOU NES!! LOOK AT MY BLAST PROCESSING!! GENESIS DOES WHAT NINTENDONT!!
Atari Jaguar: 16 BIT? HAAA!! IM 64-BIT YOU FUCKING TOOLS!! DO THE MATH!
Sega 32X: HEY!! SNES!! LIKE BEING A BIG FISH IN A LITTLE POND? I'M 32-MOTHER-FUCKING-BITS-MOTHER-FUCKER!
N64: HA! YOUR CD TECHNOLOGY IS NICE, PLAYSTATION, BUT YOUR STILL WORKING WITH OLD TECHNOLOGY - WE'RE IN 64-BIT TERRITORY NOW ************!
PS3: WEAKLINGS, BOW BEFORE OUR GRAPHICAL POWER! OUR BLURAY TECHNOLOGY SHALL MAKE ALL THE WORLD TREMBLE!!
It's been happening throughout the entire history of gaming. Also note that each of those systems eventually died out to the competition. The PS3 is still in the air, but they all doomed themselves.
Sega Genesis: FUCK YOU NES!! LOOK AT MY BLAST PROCESSING!! GENESIS DOES WHAT NINTENDONT!!
Atari Jaguar: 16 BIT? HAAA!! IM 64-BIT YOU FUCKING TOOLS!! DO THE MATH!
Sega 32X: HEY!! SNES!! LIKE BEING A BIG FISH IN A LITTLE POND? I'M 32-MOTHER-FUCKING-BITS-MOTHER-FUCKER!
N64: HA! YOUR CD TECHNOLOGY IS NICE, PLAYSTATION, BUT YOUR STILL WORKING WITH OLD TECHNOLOGY - WE'RE IN 64-BIT TERRITORY NOW ************!
PS3: WEAKLINGS, BOW BEFORE OUR GRAPHICAL POWER! OUR BLURAY TECHNOLOGY SHALL MAKE ALL THE WORLD TREMBLE!!
It's been happening throughout the entire history of gaming. Also note that each of those systems eventually died out to the competition. The PS3 is still in the air, but they all doomed themselves.
In my opinion, once graphics get to a point,it becomes detrimental. Sometimes, graphics are so good that the lack of true depth (its a tv screen) combined with reality messes with my eyes and makes it hard to focus. In other games, especially racing ones, I'll find myself staring at one thing on the screen, and then crash into a wall.
Graphics have always been the selling point and alwyas will be.. even for movies. Like do you think halflife1 would ever raise an eyebrow if they released it now?
Do you think people would pay money to go see some of the effects in the Wolverine workprint.
I personally dont really care as long as the game isnt an eyesore and can achieve a good framerate.
Do you think people would pay money to go see some of the effects in the Wolverine workprint.
I personally dont really care as long as the game isnt an eyesore and can achieve a good framerate.
Graphics aren't the main factor for me. If it looks good and the game itself is good, its a bonus. That's the case with COD4 and Farcry2.
Yea I have, I can't really get into any game that has PS1 graphics or less that doesn't use sprites as their main source of graphics and can't get into any 2D game for more than a few hours.Pandalisk said:
Because people all have chronic ADD now so in order to turn you on to a product whose gameplay you won't be able to judge until you play it they make a very cool looking shiny product first and foremost and then fill in the rest as they go depending on their budget and time tables for development.
Name a game that became successful that had really good graphics but poor gameplay. I'm willing to bet all I'll get is troll responses like halo and Oblivion.
Note: same gameplay != bad gameplay
2 games, both have the same gameplay but one has better graphics. The one with better graphics is going to be a more enjoyable experience
yes there have been games that sacrificed gameplay for graphics, and they fail almost every time. "clive barker's jericho" comes to mind.
When people get excited about reviews/previews it's because if a game has good graphics it's normally because the developers had a large enough budget for the graphics so they had the budget to also test and tweak the gameplay. if the gameplay fails, people feel cheated and the game sales die quickly
Unfortunately if a low budget game comes out that has good gameplay but bad graphics it's going to get ignored among a sea of high budget games with good graphics and average to good gameplay
Note: same gameplay != bad gameplay
2 games, both have the same gameplay but one has better graphics. The one with better graphics is going to be a more enjoyable experience
yes there have been games that sacrificed gameplay for graphics, and they fail almost every time. "clive barker's jericho" comes to mind.
When people get excited about reviews/previews it's because if a game has good graphics it's normally because the developers had a large enough budget for the graphics so they had the budget to also test and tweak the gameplay. if the gameplay fails, people feel cheated and the game sales die quickly
Unfortunately if a low budget game comes out that has good gameplay but bad graphics it's going to get ignored among a sea of high budget games with good graphics and average to good gameplay
To be really great I feel a game needs to have good gamplay, good technology (graphics and music), and smooth enough development to present both of those things with few if any glitches. Most games fail in one of those catagories.
Playability IS the most important thing, I think graphics have gotten good enough over the years where I don't nessicarly think that good graphics nessicarly go hand in hand with bleeding edge technology. A lot of it seems to come down to the designers/artists more than anything.
Older gamers that remain good typically are ones that had decent graphics at the time when they came out. For example looking back at a classic like say Ultima 7 (that people have kept alive with programs like Exult), the graphics are not very good by today's standards, but they don't make your eyes cry out with pain, and were amazing graphics for their day.
The same can be said about things like Counterstrike, when that first came out the graphics were pretty bloody good.
I'm mostly interested in the playability, but honestly if a game can't look decent nowadays without huge amounts of errors, framerate problems, and glitches, I think something is wrong.
In general if the graphics make your eyes scream in pain and look amateurish, there is a reasonable chance the rest of the game is going to be that way as well.
Though honestly today I think most gamers aren't so much interested in good graphics as familiar graphics. Basically they tend to gravitate towards things they can easily identify. Gamers who are used to playing say the GRAW or UNREAL engines, despite differant game names, seem to find it jarring when they run into graphics that work a lot differant than what they are used to.
I mean honestly most first and third person shooters are really the same game more or less. Play say Unreal Tournament III, and aside from some differant skins and a few tweaks you've seen pretty much how all other unreal engine shooters are.
Playability IS the most important thing, I think graphics have gotten good enough over the years where I don't nessicarly think that good graphics nessicarly go hand in hand with bleeding edge technology. A lot of it seems to come down to the designers/artists more than anything.
Older gamers that remain good typically are ones that had decent graphics at the time when they came out. For example looking back at a classic like say Ultima 7 (that people have kept alive with programs like Exult), the graphics are not very good by today's standards, but they don't make your eyes cry out with pain, and were amazing graphics for their day.
The same can be said about things like Counterstrike, when that first came out the graphics were pretty bloody good.
I'm mostly interested in the playability, but honestly if a game can't look decent nowadays without huge amounts of errors, framerate problems, and glitches, I think something is wrong.
In general if the graphics make your eyes scream in pain and look amateurish, there is a reasonable chance the rest of the game is going to be that way as well.
Though honestly today I think most gamers aren't so much interested in good graphics as familiar graphics. Basically they tend to gravitate towards things they can easily identify. Gamers who are used to playing say the GRAW or UNREAL engines, despite differant game names, seem to find it jarring when they run into graphics that work a lot differant than what they are used to.
I mean honestly most first and third person shooters are really the same game more or less. Play say Unreal Tournament III, and aside from some differant skins and a few tweaks you've seen pretty much how all other unreal engine shooters are.
I've never really played a game that had so bad of graphics that it was annoying... Half the time I never really notice... I have noticed, however, that the size of games keeps getting bigger and bigger... Look at Gears of War, 10x bigger in file size, install took 5-6x longer, and they both took about the same amount of time to beat... would think with games getting bigger (file size wise) they would expand to being longer then 6 hour games...