Graphics Do Matter !

Think of a game as a climbing team and member of the team is a part of the game like game play, graphics, music, story. The member speed is on how good it is so the better they are the faster they are. Now think that each member is tied together. This means that they can climb at a fast as the slowest member but some times other member can pull them along. This is that everything have a faded grey or tan look or the game goes with more of a comic book look. When one fall the other need to help keep that member up. By falling I mean like graphic error when a character face does not show and you are looking at floating eyes and teeth.

One problem these days are that some link that being slow as falling. If one game have graphic not as good an other then some think that game is "Falling".

[QUOTE="Xsan3"]

[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.

morrowindnic

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.

Same goes with Pop Cap and The occasional Free Steam Games...

People expect a better overall product when they pay more money. This is not directly related to graphics.

this generation of games i care about graphics , for some reason some games just look really bad and others with ok graphics looks fine to me , some games have some textures or something that turn me off really bad

People expect a better overall product when they pay more money. This is not directly related to graphics.

reason58

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="Xsan3"]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.

Corny as it sounds, that's still your opinion. I think Crysis has more to offer in terms of new, interesting gameplay than any CoD installment. Even so, you implied that graphics made Crysis a good game, which is simply not true. Sure, better graphics always have an influence on a game's score, but a good game is more than just graphics, and Crysis is a good game.

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

Please explain 73 million Wii's then. They have the least powerful console but the highest market penetration selling nearly as many consoles as Sony and MS put together.

Fun> graphics

[QUOTE="Xsan3"]

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 . .

VladJasonDrac

Please explain 73 million Wii's then. They have the least powerful console but the highest market penetration selling nearly as many consoles as Sony and MS put together.

Fun> graphics

graphics are always a plus, while gameplay is a must

Sorry TC, But I completely disagree. Graphics DO matter, but they aren't as nearly as important as the other content mentioned. If a game is boring, I don't care if it has the greatest graphics in the world, I still won't buy it just because it's pretty to look at. As far as this thread goes, the first thread response hit the nail of this topic right on the head.

Graphics matter to me, but equally with gameplay. if a game from this generation looks barely better than something on the PS2, its going to be an eye sore for me on an HDTV...i love gameplay, but im used to the advance look graphics have achieved now, so if i dont get that in a game, im let down.

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 actually get annoyed when the graphics are really really good and I discover an obvious bug while playing. Really, why focus on the visuals when a known bug exists in the game?

obviously i dont want games to come out that look terrible, but things that annoy me is like when dragon age origins came out and many people complained about the graphics....really? i didn't see any problem with the graphics, they weren't spectacular but they were in no way bad. graphics are important in the sense that they need to be good enough to portray the feel you want the game to have, after you have got to that point all focus should be on game play and the rest before you start thinking about improving the graphics.

"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="SalmonCatching"][QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

Actually yes, it is.

DraugenCP

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.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

"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="SalmonCatching"] Lol, how old are you? If you didn't grow up with the NES and tried playing that old game you'd flip a fuse.SalmonCatching

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.

Biased towards what?NSMBW had little variety and added nothing new to the 2D platforming genre. Apart from that the music was terrible andI couldn't play the game for more than 30 minutes. It was clearly designed to be a multiplayer experience, but even then the game is unbalanced in terms of difficulty (try beating the game with an inexperienced player). SMB3 can still be lots of fun as long as you treat it as a distraction from more intense, modern games, and not as your main gaming fix. NSMBW is a subpar experience whether you play it intensively or alongside other games. It only has multiplayer going for it.

If graphics mattered as much as you think, then: 1. The Sega Master System would have outsold the Nintendo Entertainment System 2. The Sega CD would have killed the Super Nintendo Entertainment system 3. The N64 would have outsold the PS1 4. The Xbox would have outsold the PS2 5. The PS3 and 360 would have outsold the Wii So no, graphics aren't as important as you think.UT_Wrestler

Sega Master System vs the NES is a strong Argument...But the rest of ur examples I disagree with...

The N64 didnt sell due to lack of game developers, It was very difficult to find programers to report thier games to a Cartridge rather than a CD, which is why Nintendo eventually switched to a disk. Also, I belive the PS1 graphics look better anyway..

The PS2, was Backwards compatible and had already had an established amount of Games from the PS1 lilbrary, and the original Xbox came out later in the wars...

The Wii outsells today, due tothier verisitility of gaming crowd. There are a lot of Older crowds buying the Wii, that have never even played a video game, and seem to never buy games anyway, they just stick to bowling - or Tennis? ANd the older, non-Hardcore gaming type of crowd that Im talking about, Have probably Just bought a DVD player too, because VHS is no longer available.

Folks that consider themselves Hardcore Gaming types, that Buy games all year round - Judge graphics More than they probably realise. Seems like I have to keep repeating myself but, If some of the Lates Marquee games like , Mass Effect, BioShock, MW2 and similar titles - - If those games had come out with mediocre graphics, people would have judged... And would have probably gotten a low critique because so.....

[QUOTE="Ravirr"]

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.

wizdom

Exactly.

If you can't play a great game simply because it came out in/looks like the PS2/Xbox genration, then you need help.

It is not that important if the game is good

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]If graphics mattered as much as you think, then: 1. The Sega Master System would have outsold the Nintendo Entertainment System 2. The Sega CD would have killed the Super Nintendo Entertainment system 3. The N64 would have outsold the PS1 4. The Xbox would have outsold the PS2 5. The PS3 and 360 would have outsold the Wii So no, graphics aren't as important as you think.Xsan3

Sega Master System vs the NES is a strong Argument...But the rest of ur examples I disagree with...

The N64 didnt sell due to lack of game developers, It was very difficult to find programers to report thier games to a Cartridge rather than a CD, which is why Nintendo eventually switched to a disk. Also, I belive the PS1 graphics look better anyway..

The PS2, was Backwards compatible and had already had an established amount of Games from the PS1 lilbrary, and the original Xbox came out later in the wars...

The Wii outsells today, due tothier verisitility of gaming crowd. There are a lot of Older crowds buying the Wii, that have never even played a video game, and seem to never buy games anyway, they just stick to bowling - or Tennis? ANd the older, non-Hardcore gaming type of crowd that Im talking about, Have probably Just bought a DVD player too, because VHS is no longer available.

Folks that consider themselves Hardcore Gaming types, that Buy games all year round - Judge graphics More than they probably realise. Seems like I have to keep repeating myself but, If some of the Lates Marquee games like , Mass Effect, BioShock, MW2 and similar titles - - If those games had come out with mediocre graphics, people would have judged... And would have probably gotten a low critique because so.....

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.

morrowindnic

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

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.

XXI_World

[QUOTE="XXI_World"]

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

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.

UT_Wrestler

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]

[QUOTE="XXI_World"]

You're missing the point. Yes, Plants vs. Zombies is a 2D game, but a beautiful one.

Games like Half-Life, Team Fortress Clas.sic, FFVII and some other original Game Boy games are literally unplayable to me. I can play most games with 6th gen graphics fine, but anything worse than that is a no.

XXI_World

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.

Ravirr

Thank you! That is EXACTLY what I wanted to say.

That's all there is to it, folks. Just because it doesn't have good graphics or the best graphics in the world doesn't mean it's entirely a bad game - as long as the gameplay is fun and the replay value is there, I'll be coming back for more.

actually today they dont matter,even the worst graphics are still nice,5 years ago a game with bad graphics had bad graphics nowadays bad is just mediocre.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="Xsan3"]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.

I think everyone where agree that graphics matter but how much is debatable.

I think that a great game is more than the sum of it parts.