Graphics Do Matter !

I often hear others say that Game-Play and Content matter much more than graphics.

Well, I say - In this day in age , Graphics Matter just as much!

If it were all about the Gameplay and So forth - then we would have never moved away from 64bit Consoles like the PS1 andN64.

Many others mention the Wii not having to develop HD-Games to outsell, and yet - in 2011 Nintendo will be launching an HD-Wii. And very Soon, the 3DS will be arriving to the Market - which has Everything to do with Graphics..

Now, this is mostly my opinion, yes - But with Today's technology and continuing eveloution of Games, High Graphical Content should be just as developed as the Game-Play itself.

IF you don't agree with me - I understand where you're coming from, but it seems to me - that if a Top Game Developer can't include Incredible Graphics along with Great Gameplay, then seems Lazy and Low Budget . .

You are looking at it in the wrong way. Look at it like this

Graphics but bad gameplay = boring game

Bad graphics but good gameplay = fun game

yes graphics can enhance a game, we all know that. But not every company has the huge COD, Halo, Street Fighter budget to work with.

I look At it Kinda Like this . . .

A Car might Handle Great, Fast and whatever else .

But if that car is UGLy - Then I dont care how it Handles .

AND as far as the TOP Companies - Yeah, they Have the Budget , and should definately have the Graphics . .

An Up n Comer , I look at the game "Borderland" - - That game really doesnt have spectacular Graphics, nor requires a beefy System to play it. Heck, even my Netbook with an Intel 3150 can play it.
But whats neat is, the Art and Design of Graphics - gives the impression that its a Highly Graphical Game....

Other Low Budget Designers should take a page from 'Gearbox'

I agree graphics are really important but not to the point that a game becomes unenjoyable if the graphics suck but the gameplays good...I dont think games should be judged solely on graphics and thats me now taking a step down cause i used to think graphics were single handedly the most important thing in any game, that is until i played FF13 and comparing it to FF7 on PS1...it flopped...

I often hear others say that Game-Play and Content matter much more than graphics.

Well, I say - In this day in age , Graphics Matter just as much!

If it were all about the Gameplay and So forth - then we would have never moved away from 64bit Consoles like the PS1 andN64.

Many others mention the Wii not having to develop HD-Games to outsell, and yet - in 2011 Nintendo will be launching an HD-Wii. And very Soon, the 3DS will be arriving to the Market - which has Everything to do with Graphics..

Now, this is mostly my opinion, yes - But with Today's technology and continuing eveloution of Games, High Graphical Content should be just as developed as the Game-Play itself.

IF you don't agree with me - I understand where you're coming from, but it seems to me - that if a Top Game Developer can't include Incredible Graphics along with Great Gameplay, then seems Lazy and Low Budget . .

Xsan3

It's kind of like when people say that Super Mario Bros 1 is still playable now. No it ain't.SalmonCatching

Actually yes, it is.

I read this month about Nintendo declaring the HD wii was a rumor

I also think graphics matter. They don't have to be the best for me to like the game, but they do need to be somewhat good.

I agree graphics are really important but not to the point that a game becomes unenjoyable if the graphics suck but the gameplays good...I dont think games should be judged solely on graphics and thats me now taking a step down cause i used to think graphics were single handedly the most important thing in any game, that is until i played FF13 and comparing it to FF7 on PS1...it flopped...

kairikh

How much graphics matter varies from person to person. The end.

[QUOTE="SalmonCatching"]It's kind of like when people say that Super Mario Bros 1 is still playable now. No it ain't.DraugenCP

Actually yes, it is.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="SalmonCatching"]It's kind of like when people say that Super Mario Bros 1 is still playable now. No it ain't.SalmonCatching

Actually yes, it is.

graphics dont matter much. but it would be nice to have nice graphics. its like the cherry on top

And so, does my heart break once more.

Graphics matter, but I have just as much fun with my PS2 and N64 as I do with my 360/PS3... so its not really that big of a deal.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="SalmonCatching"]It's kind of like when people say that Super Mario Bros 1 is still playable now. No it ain't.SalmonCatching

Actually yes, it is.

The game is still playable and I started gaming with the PS2. I let a bunch of my friends and family play SMB 1 and Contra and they thought of them to be really fun.

A great game with great graphics is like finding the perfect girl. Tons of fun and great to look at. Keeps you coming back for more. A horrible game with awesome graphics is like finding that hot girl that was exciting for a whole 2 minutes till you realized there was no substance or soul and quickly got rid of it.

Graphics does matter. It is the first thing that they see. It not the only thing that matters and does not hold the game alone.

Graphics have never made a game good or bad. I seriously doubt someone who really believes Nintendo is launching a Wii-HD in 2011 should be taken seriously.

Graphics have never made a game good or bad. I seriously doubt someone who really believes Nintendo is launching a Wii-HD in 2011 should be taken seriously.

seanehawk

Oh - Graphics never made a game good ?? Crysis??

[QUOTE="seanehawk"]

Graphics have never made a game good or bad. I seriously doubt someone who really believes Nintendo is launching a Wii-HD in 2011 should be taken seriously.

Xsan3

Some video game journalist on What they play. How reliable.

And graphics never made Crysis a good game.

[QUOTE="Xsan3"]

[QUOTE="seanehawk"]

Graphics have never made a game good or bad. I seriously doubt someone who really believes Nintendo is launching a Wii-HD in 2011 should be taken seriously.

seanehawk

Some video game journalist on What they play. How reliable.

[QUOTE="seanehawk"]

[QUOTE="Xsan3"]Well - this News Comes from GamespotAnd was posted some time ago . . .

Xsan3

Some video game journalist on What they play. How reliable.

Maybe if you bothered to read it, you might see what it says. Also, Some of the Nintendo heads already dismissed this rumor quite some time ago.

[QUOTE="Xsan3"]

[QUOTE="seanehawk"]

Some video game journalist on What they play. How reliable.

seanehawk

Maybe if you bothered to read it, you might see what it says. Also, Some of the Nintendo heads already dismissed this rumor quite some time ago.

Graphics are a nice bonus to a good game, but I am more than willing to play Mount and Blade or Battlefield 2 over most of the shovelware most developers put out nowadays. As long as it's somewhat modern, I'm happy. If the graphics are great, I'm really happy, but the game has to be a lot of fun too. Also, big budget does not mean a good game. Indie titles are usually the best gameplay-wise because they don't have oppressive publishers dictating their game based on market trends.

[QUOTE="seanehawk"]

[QUOTE="Xsan3"]Ur just talking jibberish now - I would take Gamespot News quite reliable...

Xsan3

Maybe if you bothered to read it, you might see what it says. Also, Some of the Nintendo heads already dismissed this rumor quite some time ago.

Where did you get that from? Also, I can tell that you're not old enough to be calling anyone else a kid.

[QUOTE="Xsan3"]

[QUOTE="seanehawk"]

Maybe if you bothered to read it, you might see what it says. Also, Some of the Nintendo heads already dismissed this rumor quite some time ago.

seanehawk

Where did you get that from? Also, I can tell that you're not old enough to be calling anyone else a kid.

Very few games made with today's technology have graphics that can be characterized as ugly, that's why I don't care about graphics so much. If a brand new game would have graphics like, say Final Fantasy 9, then I'd be very surprised, but if I heard that the gameplay is awesome, I would still play it.

So in my view, gameplay > graphics big time. Graphic bugs and such are of course irrelevant in this discussion, as any game with awesome graphics and gameplay would become annoying if it contained enough of them. Just saying.

Graphics do matter, but they aren't gamebreaking.

This is why we get those same sports games from EA every 6 months instead of good games that take years to put out. They make the grass look pretty and the sweat shiny and call it a new game. :evil: But I mean how can you really change a sports game other than graphics anyway? Add ninjas?? A new generic tackle stick. Oh wait... This year they added better voice commentary. That should change gameplay a bit... :roll:

Graphics are really important yeah but if the gameplay is bad then it doesn't matter how good it looks. It'll get some review points but other things could screw it's score. An ugly car that drives well is always going to be better than one that you can't even get around the corner with LOL. That seems a bit immature to say otherwise. That's why a lot of people will tell you that the N64 was the best console. It had bad games like all the other consoles but it put out games with amazing gameplay consistantly. Beyond Good And Evil is finally getting a remake and that came out more than 10 years ago!!

Graphics aren't even a big problem nowadays anyway but you do have people that will not play a game only because of graphics which is kind of odd since you are supposed to "play" the game and not just stare at it. Graphics do matter no doubt, but I don't put them on nearly as high a pedestal as gameplay or replayability.

I don't want graphics to seem like a second-rate issue though. Heavy Rain had some serious graphics and they really helped that game come together along with some good voice acting. And sim racers get trouble when there are even minor problems. Gran Turismo Prolouge had some serious problems with shadows and lighting that ticked people off. How do they fix it? They turn on the lamps when you go under a tunnel...:| People didn't take that well at all... But still I think other factors seem to be more important. Take a game like Virtua Fighter 5 which had great graphics but horrible dubbing and you have a problem there. Add that to the repetitive gameplay and lack of online for PS3 users and those graphics didn't mean so much anymore. That's why it's $17 on Amazon. Seriously, it's $17. It's definetly worth the money though if you wanted it.

I think graphics are what we expect from games now. If they're good we don't say anything but if they're bad then everyone notices lol. I still don't they should break a game unless they're really bad but again I don't see any games with that problem except for some PSP titles. Then I start to think about graphics because some of those games are way under what should be good.

Graphcis are really important imo. I cant stand playing anythingi before last gen

Again - I say to you folks, If a new game arrives on the market - one of the very first things that are critiqued are graphics. Even if the gameplay Is good - people tend to xplain the graphics more than u may realize.

Just like my MW2 analogy - If it had been released looking like COD2 , U can bet there would be nothing But critisism..

Oh - Graphics never made a game good ?? Crysis??Xsan3

Crysis has much more to offer than just great graphics. If it was all about the graphics and not about the gameplay, people wouldn't have loved it. The visuals helped it stand out, but if the gameplay was broken than it would never received the praise it did. Far Cry 2 will attest to that.

"Just like my MW2 analogy - If it had been released looking like COD2 , U can bet there would be nothing But critisism.."

There's already a lot of criticism now. And guess what? All of it is focused on the gameplay.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="SalmonCatching"]It's kind of like when people say that Super Mario Bros 1 is still playable now. No it ain't.SalmonCatching

Actually yes, it is.

21. Obviously it's not a game you'd spend $50 on these days, but the mechanics function as well as they did so many years ago. Especially SMB3 still has a lot of fans, and I personally think even today it's still a lot more enjoyable than a new 2D platformer such as NSMBW. True quality always gives itself away.

Graphics matter more or less depending on your priorities. I like games to look nice, but off the top of my head, my priorities probably go:

1: Gameplay (by which I vaguely mean controls and game design)

2: Interesting subject matter - setting/story/characters/franchise etc - no matter how well made some games are, they won't appeal to me if they don't interest me

3: Good art design - to me this is far, far more important than technical graphical quality

4: Good sound design - again, emphasis on the design more than the actual sound, I'd rather have well written music in MIDI-esque form than a mediocre piece of music performed using real instruments

5: Good technical graphical quality

6: Good sound quality

7 and onwards: Other stuff

Not to say graphics don't matter, and it was cool seeing graphical standards improve from 8 up until 64 bit (I'm not particularly into realistic games, but still kept up with PS2/PS3 etc), particularly as the gameplay changed significantly as well as the hardware/controls becamae more advanced, but for me the graphics are always a secondary consideration to gameplay. Assassins Creed is beautiful to look at, especially from a technical graphics standpoint compared to say, games on the Wii, but I find that game incredibly dull, while games like Okami look great to me because of the way it was designed.

If graphics matter to some people as much as the actual gameplay then groovy, not up to me to tell them what they like or not, and why they should like it, but it's not a standardised rule for everyone, and so it shouldn't. :P

Noticed the OP said something about games not having very impressive graphics looking low budget - great games still get made on low budgets (in fact most high-budget stuff doesn't appeal to me at all, eg Metal Gear, God of War etc).

so...ive never played mgs1 until after i already beat mgs4...i have to say...mgs1 was a much better experience...and for that matter...mgs3 was the best of the series...and mgs4 had the best graphics...soo to me gamplay>>>>>>>>>>>>graphics....

Well, whats about to have both? Good graphic and good gameplay = epic. Same as Uncharted 2.

I often hear others say that Game-Play and Content matter much more than graphics.

Well, I say - In this day in age , Graphics Matter just as much!

If it were all about the Gameplay and So forth - then we would have never moved away from 64bit Consoles like the PS1 andN64.

Many others mention the Wii not having to develop HD-Games to outsell, and yet - in 2011 Nintendo will be launching an HD-Wii. And very Soon, the 3DS will be arriving to the Market - which has Everything to do with Graphics..

Now, this is mostly my opinion, yes - But with Today's technology and continuing eveloution of Games, High Graphical Content should be just as developed as the Game-Play itself.

IF you don't agree with me - I understand where you're coming from, but it seems to me - that if a Top Game Developer can't include Incredible Graphics along with Great Gameplay, then seems Lazy and Low Budget . .

Xsan3

Gameplay > Graphics.

Look at Morrowind vs Oblivion, Morrowind came out in like 2002, but has MUCH better gameplay. I'd rather play Morrowind over Oblivion anyday.

Anyone who says Graphics are just as important or more then gameplay needs to recheck things.

I totally agree that graphics matter and if they didn't then explain to me why most gamers upgrade to the new hardware every so many years. Example...NHL 04 was one amazing hockey game back in the day and its still a load of fun, but would you honestly prefer to play that instead of NHL 10? I would imagine most would not. But graphics and gameplay must go hand in hand. If the gameplay isn't good most people wont play a game long enough to enjoy all the graphic qualities of the title. It would be like owning a Ferrari with a 4 cyclinder engine. It would look great, but run like a turd and be a hard sell for anyone. Games are the exact same way. Would Super Mario Bros have been any good back in the day if Mario wasn't easy to control and the game fun to play? NO. But at the same time, graphics help with the immersion. Its the graphics that draw us all in and suspend some belief that we are only playing a game. Forza 3 for example has amazing graphics which really help races identify with the cars they drive. Little things in RDR like horse muscles flexing, dust flying about, tracks in the mud, realistic stormy skies, and great character detail help players feel like they are really being an outlaw in the old wild west.

Graphics sell games and more often than not the games that win GOTY are often the titles that push the graphical boundaries such as Gears of War, Uncharted 2, God of War 3, etc.

I played and finished Metal Gear Solid 1 for the first time about 6 months ago and it stands as my favorite game of all time. Also along with a TON of other amazing old school games I never played, but decided to due to my PS3 getting YLOD. I disagree to the fullest.

[QUOTE="Xsan3"]Oh - Graphics never made a game good ?? Crysis??DraugenCP

Crysis has much more to offer than just great graphics. If it was all about the graphics and not about the gameplay, people wouldn't have loved it. The visuals helped it stand out, but if the gameplay was broken than it would never received the praise it did. Far Cry 2 will attest to that.

I played and finished Metal Gear Solid 1 for the first time about 6 months ago and it stands as my favorite game of all time. Also along with a TON of other amazing old school games I never played, but decided to due to my PS3 getting YLOD. I disagree to the fullest.

ubpoker123

New Games today Just Have to have good graphics in order to be considered a great game..

Graphics are like air -- everyone needs air to live, but nobody ever really gives air a second thought because it is always there. No air = everyone dead. No graphics = no games (because we would all just be staring at blank screens).

Saying that better graphics make better games should not be any more controversial than saying better gameplay makes a better game or saying that a better story makes a better game. Graphics becomes a controversial issue only because it is something that can be quantified. Some systems definitely can produce better graphics than others. So people get super defensive when graphics are mentioned. Gameplay and story, on the other hand, are subjective, so any system can claim they have the best. Therefore, people do not get as defensive about those things.

[QUOTE="ubpoker123"]

I played and finished Metal Gear Solid 1 for the first time about 6 months ago and it stands as my favorite game of all time. Also along with a TON of other amazing old school games I never played, but decided to due to my PS3 getting YLOD. I disagree to the fullest.

Xsan3

New Games today Just Have to have good graphics in order to be considered a great game..

What about Plants vs Zombies. Everyone seems to love it, yet its basic 2d graphics.

Great gameplay doesn't need great graphics to be good. Great graphics only add to it, but are by no means necessary.

The graphics is pretty important yeah, but the art is far more important, and like everyone says.. You don't want to play a boring game with good graphics.