Do high end graphics take more than they give?

[ResidentPsycho]

I'm a bit mixed on this, I love being able to run games at high settings, but would take gameplay/story over graphics. I don't care how good the graphics are, if the story is absolute rubbish but the graphics are way way over the top where you need a super computer to run it. crysis for example (only got an hr into it before i quit). I wont bother either playing it or finishing it. metro 2033 on the other hand, over the top graphics and great story line, pity i can only run it on medium with a few on high

[JMWolves]

I would profer a decent story over graphics.
Does matter how nice on shiney it looks if the story doesnt grip you, you aint goin to keep going back to it.
Mass Effect 2 did this brillant as i never wanted to stop playing. Others that do this well
GTA 4-doesnt look great but the story is so good
Resident evil 2-Still one of my fav games every

[Dr. Ivo Robotnik]

I've said this a number of times in the past, but it's all about art direction, really. Not the polygon-count.

You've summarised it perfectly, in my opinion. To me, the most important things about a game is it's gameplay, story, music, and atmosphere. All are tied to eachother, and tied to graphics as well, but not, as Gare says, the polygon count. If it looks fantastic, it's a plus, but it's hardly required to me.

Final Fantasy XIII is a prime example of a game that got it completely wrong in my eyes. The graphics were polished to a mirror shine, and so well-done they made me go "whooooaaaaa" the moment I started playing, but it lacks story, it lacks gameplay, and it lacks atmosphere. (I won't harp about the music, because that's too much in the eye of the beholder. ). Oh, and I realise the story's really quite expansive, but in saying 'it lacks story' I also mean that it isn't told in the right way. I read the entire encyclopaedic codex so I know what was going on, but that was the ONLY WAY to know what was going on

[Slacker Magician]

The importance of graphical quality depends on the type of game. I don't want to play a racing game with terrible graphics but, I can enjoy an RPG with lesser visuals. I really liked a lot of PSone games because the pre-rendered backgrounds more than made up for terrible 3D; I absolutely love straight 2D games like Alundra and Lunar.

[CrashmanX]

Graphics help influcence me to purchase a game. I am of course going to loko at the one with better graphics and go "OOOOH Shiny" and the other one I'll look at and go "It better have Gameplay and Story to help it". IMO Art Direction (As previously stated) really matters over anything else though. I mean if you've got a game like say Call of Duty, and you've got the super serious storyline, but you've got the art Direction of Minecraft, I don't think people are really gonna fall in love with it.

[samlai]

I have never thought of graphics as more than a nice bonus. No matter how wonderful the game's graphics are, you are bound to get bored eventually.
What a game really need is simply their gameplay, storyline, etc. They are the ones that truly attract a gamer, and retain their attention through their curiosity, and stuff...
Many game companies have got their priorities wrong, therefore many end up as a mere grinding game. It's like playing a game made by elementary school kids with the best graphics engine!
Looking at the votes, I daresay everyone here goes for the depth of the game, not the surface value.

[Kermit Da Frog]

My main argument: FF XIII.

[Mistral]

I can understand where graphics people are coming from, to be honest. Good, coherent graphics allow for a more efficient transfer of information to the user, and promotes situational awareness in multiple senses of the concept. Ian McConville actually pointed it out regarding Minecraft in particular - retro graphics styles are one thing, but among other issues, there aren't visual environmental cues from a mob when an attack is imminent (beyond "poof, surprise arrow"), and primitive shadowing algorithms tend to make the environment a bit more difficult to parse at distances (then he linked to this). The TBS games I typically play don't require complicated graphics, and there's a certain strand of elitism involved in them that you don't see in FPS or RTS genres ("3D maps = selling out", for an actual and frequent offender in recent memory). Still, even there, a good graphical direction and display can allow for significant information to be understood at a single glance, even if it's as simple as "red = bad" and "green = good". It doesn't have to be computer-melting, but it is actually rather difficult for me to play number-heavy DOS games nowadays, thanks to simply the low resolution and pixellation obfuscating already-dense displays. It's as much game design as it is merely raw graphics, but it is important to do it well, at least.

My main argument: FF XIII.

That's wonderful. Got something to actually add?

[Alan Heer]

You've summarised it perfectly, in my opinion. To me, the most important things about a game is it's gameplay, story, music, and atmosphere. All are tied to eachother, and tied to graphics as well, but not, as Gare says, the polygon count. If it looks fantastic, it's a plus, but it's hardly required to me.

Final Fantasy XIII is a prime example of a game that got it completely wrong in my eyes. The graphics were polished to a mirror shine, and so well-done they made me go "whooooaaaaa" the moment I started playing, but it lacks story, it lacks gameplay, and it lacks atmosphere. (I won't harp about the music, because that's too much in the eye of the beholder. ). Oh, and I realise the story's really quite expansive, but in saying 'it lacks story' I also mean that it isn't told in the right way. I read the entire encyclopaedic codex so I know what was going on, but that was the ONLY WAY to know what was going on

Square enix really screwed up that game. They made FF13 to basically be a graphical movie masterpiece. More open ended gameplay could have greatly improved FF13. Another thing was the lack of towns. The reason they didn't include them was because they couldn't program towns in HD and they weren't going to program it in SD. Its sad they left out towns just because they let their pride take over. It would have lost Teh Grafix, but it would have been better. Hopefully FF13V will be better.

[HowlerMonkey]

I really like nice graphics, but what I care about more is framerate. If the game can't keep a consistently high framerate, that's when it's going to start sucking. I'd gladly take a hit in the graphical quality department for a smooth framerate throughout.

I was super cheesed when I found out the Castlevania: LoS developers were shooting for 30 FPS. I mean I know they say the human eye can't see faster than 30 FPS, but you know you can see a difference between playing a game at 30 fps compared to 60 fps compared to 120 fps. LoS isn't bad at 30, and it's definitely a really pretty game, but like I said I'd definitely be happier with a reduction in quality to make sure the game had 30 fps as its minimum

[skullpoker]

dood i r emyool8

wut r hi ind grafix?

[Chocobolicious]

Most of my favorite games are sprite based affairs, so I cant really say super HD graphics matter to me. Art, good presentation, good concept and theme, those are all essential. Even back in the NES era it was an important sticking point.

To bring something up though: Someone mentioned Crysis. For ages I hadn't bothered playing the game simply because all I heard about were its screaming hot visuals and such. About how it was a great hardware benchmark and all of that. Recently I picked the damn game up and /played/ it, seriously, past the first section and... My gods that game is fun. I wish all these asshats who had been drooling over the graphics had mentioned how much fun it was. Seriously. Using a screaming korean man as a shield while putting a shell into an explosive barrel, then using him to propel said barrel out into a bay and blow up a patrol boat is fucking spectacular.

Open ended, slightly psychotic FPS for the fucking win.

[Slacker Magician]

I really like nice graphics, but what I care about more is framerate. If the game can't keep a consistently high framerate, that's when it's going to start sucking. I'd gladly take a hit in the graphical quality department for a smooth framerate throughout.

I was super cheesed when I found out the Castlevania: LoS developers were shooting for 30 FPS. I mean I know they say the human eye can't see faster than 30 FPS, but you know you can see a difference between playing a game at 30 fps compared to 60 fps compared to 120 fps. LoS isn't bad at 30, and it's definitely a really pretty game, but like I said I'd definitely be happier with a reduction in quality to make sure the game had 30 fps as its minimum

If you're a cyborg, sure.

[Gare]

Oh, you guys. No, 30 FPS isn't the limit of the human eye, and yes, you can see the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. When I usually play a game on 60, playing it on 30 will seriously bother me. I can notice the difference pretty much instantly.

See?

To bring something up though: Someone mentioned Crysis. For ages I hadn't bothered playing the game simply because all I heard about were its screaming hot visuals and such. About how it was a great hardware benchmark and all of that. Recently I picked the damn game up and /played/ it, seriously, past the first section and... My gods that game is fun. I wish all these asshats who had been drooling over the graphics had mentioned how much fun it was. Seriously. Using a screaming korean man as a shield while putting a shell into an explosive barrel, then using him to propel said barrel out into a bay and blow up a patrol boat is fucking spectacular.

Open ended, slightly psychotic FPS for the fucking win.

Hey, good to see someone who thinks the same. Ever played Warhead, the expansion? If not, do it. It's also pretty awesome.

[Raype]

Oh, you guys. No, 30 FPS isn't the limit of the human eye, and yes, you can see the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. When I usually play a game on 60, playing it on 30 will seriously bother me. I can notice the difference pretty much instantly.

Actually, it is. Your eye can't register more than 30 frames for every second. Those extra 30 frames you're seeing at 60FPS aren't visible. Plus the images on that page would work properly if the animation were properly structured for 15 30 and 60.

Furthermore, "should movies be shot at 30FPS"

Most are shot at 18 to 24.