you know what?...fuck it....graphics ARE important
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But they had to use this newfangled technology known as "3D modeling"! How else were they supposed to keep the kids these days interested?Vault101 said:
Plus, if you look closely at the environment, it suddenly starts to feel really unreal. Not a good sign for any game going for immersion.
This...this right here...is someone who gets it.Nomanslander said:
It's not about how "amazing" your graphical engine is. It's how you bloody use it.
I don't care if your engine can push a billion trillion polygons, textures so hi-res monitors can't handle them, and models so detailed they're mapped down to the atom. If your art direction is lazy, uncreative, and uninspired (or worse, not appropriate for your game) your game will look like shit. Simple as.
As the OP said, there's a reason games like Half-Life 2, Bioshock, and others; though they came out upwards of a decade ago; still look comparatively good today. It's because of the skill of the art team behind those games. They were able to work within the confines of their engine and craft imaginative, creative, and believable worlds.
So yes, Vault. You're at least partially right that graphics are important. However, it's not the "graphics" themselves that are key, it's how they're used.
Vault101 said:
I think the reason you think Source engine games still look good is because they're animated really well.
I put more on things moving nicely than visuals being super great, I like my sprite games with no filters and chunky pixels and all that stuff. I just recently played Duke Nukem 3D which I never played past the shareware versions limits and it's been better than most other shooters today by a long shot.
And I recently picked up Blood a game made by the same guys put out a short time later, it's freaking amazing fun.
All I had to do were change some settings in some file that came with the GoG files and I control the games like any modern shooter. WADS, mouse, jump etc.
I put more on things moving nicely than visuals being super great, I like my sprite games with no filters and chunky pixels and all that stuff. I just recently played Duke Nukem 3D which I never played past the shareware versions limits and it's been better than most other shooters today by a long shot.
And I recently picked up Blood a game made by the same guys put out a short time later, it's freaking amazing fun.
All I had to do were change some settings in some file that came with the GoG files and I control the games like any modern shooter. WADS, mouse, jump etc.
Kids these days... I swear.
Graphics don't mean jack if the gameplay is good.
If dated graphics ruin your experience... well... maybe you need a better hobby. Or play more J"RPG"s where the "gameplay" is more watching CG cutscenes than actual playing the game.
Graphics don't mean jack if the gameplay is good.
If dated graphics ruin your experience... well... maybe you need a better hobby. Or play more J"RPG"s where the "gameplay" is more watching CG cutscenes than actual playing the game.
damn right huh? I mean if you prefer say...a controller to mouse and keyboard..shallow modern shooters to some of the classics of our time...if you LIKE anything thats been "dumbed down" then you really have no buisness playing games and shouldn't at allKroxile said:
Graphics are important, but it's less the quality of the graphics (in terms of photo-realism, et al), and more how the whole package fits together.
For example, I still think Wind Waker is one of the more impressive games, graphically speaking, that is yet to come out. The art design, animations and the like all flow together really well, and it ends up still looking good 10 years after the fact.
Compare that to say, COD4, which was great at the time, but doesn't hold up down the road.
My point is that it's less the number of polygons and shaders and fancy doodads that the graphics have, and more the art direction that makes or breaks a game IMO.
For example, I still think Wind Waker is one of the more impressive games, graphically speaking, that is yet to come out. The art design, animations and the like all flow together really well, and it ends up still looking good 10 years after the fact.
Compare that to say, COD4, which was great at the time, but doesn't hold up down the road.
My point is that it's less the number of polygons and shaders and fancy doodads that the graphics have, and more the art direction that makes or breaks a game IMO.
If the story is shit than I agree, otherwise I prefer story and game play over how a game looks.
The key sentence. I don't have anything other to say except that you are wrong. That may be your opinion, but it's wrong.Vault101 said:
Also
Not to sound elitist, or to insult you, but I'm sorry for people like you.Vault101 said:
To explain:
Now you see why I'm sorry for gamers like you.Vault101 said:
May I say, the proofs in the puddin' with people that still play games like DOOM, Halo, GuNZ and other various shit I used to play.
It's not graphics that make a game, it's the content and gameplay.
It's not graphics that make a game, it's the content and gameplay.
sorry if I have to put a [i/]"buy the way guys this in ONLY my 100% subjective opinion and totally not claiming I'm right or anything" [/i]tag after everything I say....Imbechile said:
never said it was universal...kind of like if I say I really really LOVE Skrillex you can;t actually tell me I'm wrong
my veiw here may be narrow...but it ain't wrong for me
you can enjoy Deus Ex as is...and thats awsome..for you
[quote/]Not to sound elitist, or to insult you, but I'm sorry for people like you.
To explain:
Now you see why I'm sorry for gamers like you.[/quote]Vault101 said:
I think I'll honestly be able to live with [b/]enjoying[/b] Deus ex:HR more than Deus Ex 1
I can still play some games that aren't graphically strong but that is only if it is a cartoon style game. I feel that outside of that graphics really boost the gameplay and help immersion. I didn't feel that immersed in because the NPCs weren't graphically very good. My girlfriend frequently tells me a problem she can have with gaming (she's not a big gamer but enjoys playing some games) is that she feels she's already been spoiled by Heavy Rain and LA Noire's facial graphics.
Don't get me wrong, graphics don't Make or Break a game for me. I still love older games which are stylish and have great gameplay whereas a game that looks great but I don't enjoy playing I can't enjoy.
Don't get me wrong, graphics don't Make or Break a game for me. I still love older games which are stylish and have great gameplay whereas a game that looks great but I don't enjoy playing I can't enjoy.
AESTHETICS matter. Graphic technology does not. Halo 3, with its colors and interesting locales, looks a million times better than Modern Warfare 3, despite it coming out 4 years earlier. And Wind Waker looks about a million times better than pretty much every game released these days. It is all about having an interesting and engaging aesthetic, and you don't need graphical technology to do that. You just need imagination.
I won't say that graphics are entirely without importance, depending on the game. (I never felt that text adventures were necessarily improved by the addition of graphics, but I recognize that, at least commercially, the genre is essentially dead.)
But while a game with excellent gameplay and mediocre graphics might not win the audience it could have, it's still fundamentally a good game. But a game with excellent graphics and poor gameplay is a bad game.
Similarly, if a game's underlying mechanics are inherently captivating, I think most players are more likely to forgive some graphical repetition, palette-swapping, and the like- in part because there may be a feeling of exploration and/or achievement that goes beyond seeing something dramatically different.
But while a game with excellent gameplay and mediocre graphics might not win the audience it could have, it's still fundamentally a good game. But a game with excellent graphics and poor gameplay is a bad game.
Similarly, if a game's underlying mechanics are inherently captivating, I think most players are more likely to forgive some graphical repetition, palette-swapping, and the like- in part because there may be a feeling of exploration and/or achievement that goes beyond seeing something dramatically different.
Morrowind is now the scariest game in existence because the graphics make the monsters look like eldritch abominations from the darkest polygon pits of hades.
I'm okay with old graphics generally but when you play a game like crysis 2 after playing Deus Ex you almost puke rainbows.
I'm okay with old graphics generally but when you play a game like crysis 2 after playing Deus Ex you almost puke rainbows.