Printable View
Simple really.
Do you feel that you cannot play a newer release unless it has those nice HD Graphics, or do you concern yourself more with Gameplay.
Me I'm A gameplay person but I know people that will not touch A game if it looks like its from the PlayStation era or lower.
I am mostly a game play person. However, I am of the opinion that the game play can be severely damaged by the quality of the graphics. I'm not saying that everything has to be super-high-res-realistic-perfect graphics, but the graphics have to fit the game style and play. If the graphics are absolute shit, it can really impede on how much I actually enjoy the game, because while I might be having some fun, my eyes will constantly be diverted by some awful looking texture.
Mostly, however, if I like the story and I like the way that the game controls, I'm happy and can get past it. Just because a game looks sexy doesn't mean it's going to play well.
Well i bought minecraft, i play WoW, and i don't own a machine that can process bleeding edge graphics.
So no, I'm pretty much a gameplay guy.
It can play like crap if it has a good soundtrack :wacko:
So long as I can recognize whatever the Hell it is I should be seeing, I'm fine with graphics. I grew up on a mixture of GB, Game Gear, NES, SNES, Genesis and Atari 2600, so the most mind blowing, amazing graphical trick I ever saw was reflections in water in some games. I was suckered in by the PS1 and its "amazing" graphics, but looking back at them now they're just ridiculous, especially something like FF7.
I think most modern games suffer these days because they spend so much time, effort and especially cash on graphics; that leaves less for important things like story, game play and game length. Which is why it offends me that some games demand 60 bucks for only a few hours of play time while boasting the same zOMG TEH GRAFIX R AWSUM nonsense that has become a staple in this modern day of gaming from all the big name developers.
for some reason reading the replies reminded me of one tard which made me facepalm it was some thread on some forum ages ago where he was saying pc gaming should go F itself and consoles are the way of the future and only console games was good... you know the usual
my only reply was "dude your an idiot, just becuase "omfg it aintz on ma ecsbockz" doesnt mean it sucks not to mention FPS games will always be superior on PC take TF2 for example"
Just a random memory that popped to mind about some of the opposite people fence that only look at graphics and there 360's xD
Drag deffo has a point on that and it is rather true if Crysis wasn't computer killing over the top people would have noticed theres almost no game there by now (see what I did there :P)
If anyone remembers playing any of the need for speed games on console.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kouen
You remember those like... minute and a half load times?
Yeah those levels load in 4 seconds on my PC.
Suck it.
graphics dont really matter for me, actually i prefer 2d and playstation 2 3d graphics. this gen might have the best graphics ever but there are a lot of bugs and glitches, id rather have a near perfect game with good graphics than a super modern with tons of glitches.
oh and nothing beats metal slug style 2d graphics.
Graphics are pretty much a non-issue for me. A game that looks like crap and is enjoyable is better then something that's just pretty.
When it comes to graphics, there are only a few instances I want them. I like when your able to see a beautifully rendered forest with sunbeams and butterflies... thats about it. Most games the micr*s*ft game generating machine sends out are fps with annoying rendered blood. I agree 100% that gameplay is the most important factor in a game, 2nd being story, 3rd being graphics. If you want high end graphics watch a hollywood movie, if you want extensive story read a book (or play a jrpg). If one wants to play a game they must sort through them to find one that actually is a game.
But don't get me wrong, I voted nice bonus. I think back to Tomb Raider 3 for my Playstation, and I'll admit it was difficult figuring out what was a cracked wall, and what was a lever. TR3 was probably the game that gave me my in-game ocd on checking everything, talking to everyone, and visiting all places twice. TR3 was a good game, the graphics made the game slightly more difficult though.. I think that PS2 gen graphics are about as far as graphics should have progressed, it was during that time that trees looked like trees, people looked like people, and forests had sunbeams.
This is my opinion anyways.
I've said this a number of times in the past, but it's all about art direction, really. Not the polygon-count.
It's a nice bonus. Much like the art. It can really improve a game, but it's hardly the most important part.
If anyone happens to have a recent game they enjoyed, think about if it would've been quite as good if it happened to have NES graphics. Or if that FPS/FPSRPG looked like wolfenstein. Now how about if the music and sound effects were replaced by Atari era beeps. So yeah, it's important. :wacko:
*mentions pre 21st century consoles, especially atari, gameboy, genesis and gamegear*Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolus Aeneas
*bitches about game length, story, and gameplay, and the overemphasis on graphics*
I think we all know what I'd say here, so I'll spare you all the wall o' text and simply opt to do this
:rolleyes:
And this too. It's also a great way to time-proof your game. There's some PSX games that still look pretty good by today's standards simply because a little over a decade ago someone got the brilliant idea to stylize it properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gare
sometimes retro music and/or sounds can add atmosphere too, i was really amazed by the little big planet 2 intro level where media molecule replaced the original music (left bank 2) with an 8 bit version. other examples are the remixed version of crimson rose and red wine from katamari, some of the sound effects in the 2 no more heroes games and cladun. i could never ever imagine playing those games with all those things missing.
I think the prime example of gameplay over graphics is FFXIII. The graphics were so good that the developers couldn't have things like towns, etc. in FFXIII because it would be just too much to process. The entire game was a puppet to those powerhungry graphics, however you look at it.
But on the other end, I can't play Atari or anything before NES. I can barely play Commodore 64. I'm not infatuated with graphics, but there's limits. Even pre-3D rendered games on N64, PSX, and Saturn are hard to play in some cases. The technology just wasn't there yet and it made the gameplay choppy and made my eyes hurt.
This. A thousand times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gare
The overall integration of the art style with the themes and elements of the game is more important than the raw detail or polygon count. Which is a good chunk of the reason everyone remembers the graphics of FF7 (sorry to name it, but it had a tightly integrated art style that used the limitations of the times fairly well in illustrating a suitably cyberpunk-infused fantasy setting) and only hardcore enthusiasts remember the artistic stuff in Heart of Darkness (which had awesome graphics but a serious lack of gameplay and issues with the graphic style not entirely matching the feel portrayed by the gameplay).
I can agree with most of you on what you are saying.
Graphics do not make a game.
The basic requirement of a game lie in the gameplay and story of the game.
Everything else such as sound, graphics unlocks etc. are not nearly as important as the above two.
These features should be there to COMPLIMENT the game. Unfortunately too many developers these days rely on pretty graphics to pull them through.
On the other hand, if the story and gameplay are well made then the foundation of the game is laid.
The addition of better graphics and better audio will naturally enhance the game.
I'll give an example.
Dynasty Warriors.
Dynasty warriors 4 was a great game. I spent hours playing it and loved it to pieces.
Dynasty warriors 5 built on the foundations of Dynasty warriors 4. The graphics and sound were improved and parts of the story which werent detailed in 4 were fleshed out more was added.
Dynasty warriors 6 left the foundation of gameplay and story laid out to allow for a completely new style with prettier graphics but reduced the games longevity.
My point being is that 5 is a better game than 6. Graphically it is inferior, but they laid out proper foundations for the game and worked from there.
While Dynasty warriors 4 and 5 are basically identical in story and gameplay, I find that the improvements in graphics and audio were enough to compel me to play 5 instead.
Graphics compliment the game, they do not make them.