Does this game really have the best graphics? or did it just have nice scenery.

Okay so I've seen lots of great looking games lately. and I'm a PC guy so I'll say that all games look best on the PC.

A lot of game engines show off lots of great graphical rendering powers. A lot of games however built on the top engines eg. unreal engine, don't look all that awesome. Only some games really show off the software's true potential.

With that said, what should be considered when choosing a game for best graphics of the year? Crysis has some great graphics. When you get inside of buildings, it's not all that hot. Think about it, if crysis never had the forests and beaches and waterfalls and tree canopys, would people really be that crazy about it? What if Gears of War was set in a space ship or somethingwith less blood and grimey surfaces. would it still be that popular for graphics?

What really counts, scenery, cinematics, the game engine's potential? what?

Crysis has some great graphics. When you get inside of buildings, it's not all that hot.

d_originaldappa

Don't agree at all. Indoors or outdoors, Crysis is the best-looking game I've seen in my life.

if crysis had a doom 3 stlye settings with mostly indoors the graphics would obiously be improved drasticlly seeing as the indoor level such as the ship give u the highest frame rate in the game(thats that only place i can actually run it on very high and not get 10fps).

crytek maybe payed less attention to the indoor levels and more to the out door seeing as 90% of the game takes place out side but if it was the other way around there would be more detail indoors. even still the indoor graphics still look really good.

altough i dont agree with your point why should we judge a games graphics with what if's. what if there was no shadows?what if there was no bloom,what if the game was all indoors instead of out doors?what if it took place on pluto? the fact is crysis does have lush forest and beaches and looks awesome :D

[QUOTE="d_originaldappa"]

Crysis has some great graphics. When you get inside of buildings, it's not all that hot.

JP_Russell

Indoors or outdoors, Crysis is the best-looking game I've seen in my life.

Agreed, Crysis looked amazing indoors.

And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. Skeptomania

[QUOTE="Skeptomania"]And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. wslacker2

I do not think that's true. I love older games like Doom 2, Quake (I'm playing it now) Baldur's Gate 2, and Morrowind, Deus Ex, etc.. Yes, if it is a new game, then it needs to be up to par graphically. But if the game lacks in story line, I will not buy it. Even if it is stellar graphically.

You don't think what's true? You don't think it's true that graphics matter? Then why did you say new games need to be up to par graphically? If you didn't care about graphics, you wouldn't care if a new game was up to par graphically. Do you know why graphics are constantly advancing in the video game industry? Because that's what consumers demand. Enjoying old games doesn't mean you don't care about graphics. Most of the games you are playing are 3d. If graphics didn't matter, Id wouldn't have become famous for thier role in advancing gaming into 3d.

Cinematics don't count for anything when it comes to a games graphics quality. Do the cutscenes from C&C3 which are videos of real people make it the best graphics? No they don't.-Sphere-

i agree.. look at some of the ffx cutscenes.. Those are still amazing looking graphics even to this day, doesnt make the overall graphics good though.

[QUOTE="wslacker2"]

[QUOTE="Skeptomania"]And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. Skeptomania

I do not think that's true. I love older games like Doom 2, Quake (I'm playing it now) Baldur's Gate 2, and Morrowind, Deus Ex, etc.. Yes, if it is a new game, then it needs to be up to par graphically. But if the game lacks in story line, I will not buy it. Even if it is stellar graphically.

You don't think what's true? You don't think it's true that graphics matter? Then why did you say new games need to be up to par graphically? If you didn't care about graphics, you wouldn't care if a new game was up to par graphically. Do you know why graphics are constantly advancing in the video game industry? Because that's what consumers demand. Enjoying old games doesn't mean you don't care about graphics. Most of the games you are playing are 3d. If graphics didn't matter, Id wouldn't have become famous for thier role in advancing gaming into 3d.

Because new games have the new technology to be graphically better than the older games. Let me state a game that was ahead of its time when it was new: Farcry. The game was/is beautiful. The water was stellar in that game. So were the rest of the environments. But, gameplay-wise, I personally hated it. To me it was almost unrealistically hard. And, I play one handed due to a disability. Despite the game's difficulty for me, I just lost interest about 1/2 way through. I stopped caring who I was playing. I( never stopped caring about J.C. Denton in Deus Ex or the Quake guy.

Half Life 2 was beautiful graphically when it was new as well. I stopped using the buggy in the middle of the game, and I just walked along the road gazing at the water and scenery. Yes it was great graphically. But what kept me playing the game was that I cared about being Gordon Freeman. A scientist with a crowbar.

Art direction and setting is much more important that the raw performance of graphic engine...for that reason i can call the 1st 2 Thief games great looking anyday. and yea, Infinity engine > Aurora engine, hands down.

Well, the thing i really look for graphically in a game is not on your list. That is perspective and how things move in the backround when your strafing and such, this really brings the realism up in my books.

And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. Skeptomania

Exactly! As I was telling my friend yesterday, the only two components of computer games are their visuals and their stories. This gameplay I have heard people mention is just a myth perpetuated by the liberal gaming media.

Something you need to consider is that, as graphics continue to evolve, so too is gameplay constantly evolving. With each engine generation comes refined and improved gameplay mechanics, new ways of playing games and even new genres. You mentioned id becoming famous for their technological advancements - but don't forget that id was also at the forefront of gameplay design back in the day.

I don't care about graphics at all. Better visuals make a game better - period - but I also don't care about them. All else being equal, I will take the game with the better graphics - but all else is very, very rarely equal. Most of the finest games are visually antiquated, and I would rather play them all over newer iterations. You may want to ask me why I don't go even further back in the gaming timeline, if visuals are so unimportant. The obvious reason is that, as I said, gameplay is becoming more evolved and refined as well - there are cutoff points where most games aren't worth playing because their gameplay has been bested absolutely.

I have never bought a game because of its visual quality, and I doubt I ever will. And I'm yet to encounter a game I did not want to play because of its poor visual quality.

[QUOTE="wslacker2"]

[QUOTE="Skeptomania"]And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. Skeptomania

I do not think that's true. I love older games like Doom 2, Quake (I'm playing it now) Baldur's Gate 2, and Morrowind, Deus Ex, etc.. Yes, if it is a new game, then it needs to be up to par graphically. But if the game lacks in story line, I will not buy it. Even if it is stellar graphically.

You don't think what's true? You don't think it's true that graphics matter? Then why did you say new games need to be up to par graphically? If you didn't care about graphics, you wouldn't care if a new game was up to par graphically. Do you know why graphics are constantly advancing in the video game industry? Because that's what consumers demand. Enjoying old games doesn't mean you don't care about graphics. Most of the games you are playing are 3d. If graphics didn't matter, Id wouldn't have become famous for thier role in advancing gaming into 3d.

I care too much about both. Storyline and graphics. How about that? :P

And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. Skeptomania

Far from the truth. I played a MUD (A colourful text based game) for over 2 years and some of my best gaming experiences in it. Wanna know why? The story, the character development, and the TRUE roleplay. So no, graphics don't mean anything. It's the gameplay and story that keeps a game going.

[QUOTE="Skeptomania"]And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. Cdscottie

Far from the truth. I played a MUD (A colourful text based game) for over 2 years and some of my best gaming experiences in it. Wanna know why? The story, the character development, and the TRUE roleplay. So no, graphics don't mean anything. It's the gameplay and story that keeps a game going.

So you don't care about graphics at all, yet you have the rig in your sig? This is not even a debate. Graphics matter. Some of you just think it makes you different from the crowd or more intellectual or something to say "I don't care about graphics". You do care about graphics, whether you admit it or not.

[QUOTE="Cdscottie"]

[QUOTE="Skeptomania"]And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. Skeptomania

Far from the truth. I played a MUD (A colourful text based game) for over 2 years and some of my best gaming experiences in it. Wanna know why? The story, the character development, and the TRUE roleplay. So no, graphics don't mean anything. It's the gameplay and story that keeps a game going.

So you don't care about graphics at all, yet you have the rig in your sig? This is not even a debate. Graphics matter. Some of you just think it makes you different from the crowd or more intellectual or something to say "I don't care about graphics". You do care about graphics, whether you admit it or not.

I enjoy playing GAMES, not just for the graphical experience but for the overall experience. Yes, I like the graphics of some games but it doesn't make/break a game for me. I am more then happy to pop in an old game and enjoy it as much as I did when I purchased it years. The graphics are the icing on the cake and without the icing I can still eat the cake. And the reason for my computer isn't just for graphics, I am a computer enthusiast and just love building systems. So why not have some decent hardware in my computer if I enjoy that aspect?

[QUOTE="Skeptomania"][QUOTE="Cdscottie"]

[QUOTE="Skeptomania"]And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. Cdscottie

Far from the truth. I played a MUD (A colourful text based game) for over 2 years and some of my best gaming experiences in it. Wanna know why? The story, the character development, and the TRUE roleplay. So no, graphics don't mean anything. It's the gameplay and story that keeps a game going.

First you say it's far from the truth that people who say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. Then you say you like graphics and that graphics are part of the experience. You're contradicting yourself. I don't even think you know what you mean.

As others have already stated, graphics are not the reason why I play games. I can still play many older games and look past their outdated graphics, because they have interesting stories and gameplay.

However, that's not to say I don't consider graphics important for building atmosphere and bringing game worlds to life. Nevertheless, I prefer detailed textures and good character animations over all the bloom and HDR and other pixel shader effects they use these days. I dislike anything that makes a scene more blurry or harder to see what is going on.

I tried Crysis on max graphics settings briefly (my PC couldn't cope with it to play the game, but I just wanted to see what the fuss was about), and it did look nice. However, as with most games, the graphics just become a background blur after the first fifteen minutes for me as I concentrate on the action and the story, so really it didn't matter to me that I played the game on lower settings.

Having said that, I think character animation and good facial animation are important for helping you to build a relationship with in-game characters, which is why I find Half-Life 2 (and the episodes) so engaging. Stunted or robotic animation and poor facial expression do more to harm my enjoyment of a game than an absence of perfect lighting in a scene or having the right kind of ripples in water.

When it comes to cinematics, they can be useful for introducing new characters or events, particularly those beyond the view of the character you are playing - but it really depends on the game as to whether cinematics are necessary or not. For example, I think a Star Wars game, or even a James Bond game, benefit from cinematics by showing what the villains are up to - and screen time for villains can be very important in fleshing out those kinds of characters. For most FPS games (and even RPGs), I'd prefer Half-Life scripted events where I can retain control over my character. I actually found the way Crysis removed control from you to show a scripted scene a bit annoying, tbh.

First you say it's far from the truth that people who say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. Then you say you like graphics and that graphics are part of the experience. You're contradicting yourself. I don't even think you know what you mean.

Skeptomania

Liking something and caring about it aren't the same thing, nor does one always mean the other must also apply. There are plenty of things about games one can look at and go "I like when a game has that, but it won't hurt anything if it doesn't."

[QUOTE="Cdscottie"][QUOTE="Skeptomania"][QUOTE="Cdscottie"]

[QUOTE="Skeptomania"]And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. Skeptomania

Far from the truth. I played a MUD (A colourful text based game) for over 2 years and some of my best gaming experiences in it. Wanna know why? The story, the character development, and the TRUE roleplay. So no, graphics don't mean anything. It's the gameplay and story that keeps a game going.

First you say it's far from the truth that people who say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. Then you say you like graphics and that graphics are part of the experience. You're contradicting yourself. I don't even think you know what you mean.

Ok, what I'm saying is. It doesn't matter to me how good the graphics are. I can be watching a movie or reading a book and still enjoy both equally as much. I am in it for the experience. It can be enhanced by the graphics but it isn't everything that makes a game for me. Most of the time, it's the gameplay and story that drags me into a game.

Take Crysis for example. Beautiful graphics but it bored me to tears for the most part, so the graphics weren't an important part of the game for me. Now take Starcraft for example. I can still sit down and play the game for hours and yet I'm looking at a 2D game that has been surpassed in graphical power for over 10 years.

So what I'm saying is if the game has gameplay and story, the graphics can add to the experience but if it only has graphics and is missing the other components, it might as well be just another computer benchmark to me. As for the MUD, I enjoyed it as it used my imagination for the graphics. Something that most games never stimulate.

And people that say they don't care about graphics at all are full of it. The main way a game is processed by the brain is visually. If you only cared about storyline you'd be reading a book. Skeptomania

His comment is so true. I am a self-admitted graphics whore and I read a lot. Not once have I played a game for a complex story. I play games for fun factor, style, sound, and visual appeal.

In my opinon grphics are 40% why i buy games and 50% for story ( 10% other ). People who buy games for graphics miss out on a good story, and people who buy for the story don't get some games visually. Only truly good games can have the two in harmony.

In my opinon grphics are 40% why i buy games and 50% for story ( 10% other ). People who buy games for graphics miss out on a good story, and people who buy for the story don't get some games visually. Only truly good games can have the two in harmony.

pvtdonut54

No offense, but have you read any good novels lately? A good story will rarely be found in games. Once you appreciate novels, games are just satifaction for Occipital Lobe (that's the rear part of the brain that processes visual stimuli) and temporal Lobe (auditory processing) Yes, you heard it here, video games will always be brainless fun.

Yes, you heard it here, video games will always be brainless fun.

claytoma

Are you joking? I hope you're joking. Games like System Shock 2 and the Myst series are easily comparable with (much) literature in terms of complexity, intelligence and quality of storytelling. I'm not a huge recreational reader (around 13,000 pages per year - I'm more into writing than reading), but I think I read enough to qualify as someone who appreciates novels, and I think it's ridiculous to outright state that all games have bad stories, and that computer game stories are below someone who reads. In fact, that's pretty damn arrogant.

That's not to say you aren't mostly correct - most games stories are awful, and their storytelling is even worse, but you're making a pretty extreme generalisation above, and I sincerely hope it means you've never played System Shock 2, in which case I recommend you track down a copy.

meaning no disrespect....but SS2 isn't exactly a ball of fire in the story department as well...... you seriously think it's such a cerebral game? :?

[QUOTE="claytoma"]

Yes, you heard it here, video games will always be brainless fun.

fatshodan

That's not to say you aren't mostly correct - most games stories are awful, and their storytelling is even worse, but you're making a pretty extreme generalisation above, and I sincerely hope it means you've never played System Shock 2, in which case I recommend you track down a copy.

I can understand the people who play games and are in awe of the eye-candy, but isn't the core of what makes us a gamers want to play the gameplay? I see a lot of people stating they care mostly about story, but if that story is wrapped around terrible mechanics you'll still play it? And, the flip-side of that is that if I were playing games for the story, I'd rarely play games. Do you story-only gamers pass up on games like Audiosurf, Super Mario Galaxy, Civilization (any), and about 95% of the games out there because the story is either missing entirely or rubbish?

Also, graphics are important. If I'm shelling out $50 (or more) for a game, it better not look like it was made ten (or more) years ago. And, if it does have lower-end graphics, the gameplay better be through the roof.

The CryEngine 2 is the most advanced and technically proficient piece of gaming engine software to date. Period. There is no debate at all.foxhound_fox

Technologically advanced i agree. how many games have been using this technology compared to the unreal engine?

Is the technology all that important? Some unreal engine games look like crap and play like crap. The cry engine has it's faults too. Graphics counts in a game but how much?
I've played some of the games most praised for graphic quality and not all of them are top in my list.

COD 4 was great, the graphics were good but the gameplay and a few other elements made me insane about this game. If theis game had terrible graphics, I would still play it.

Gears of war had some sweet graphics and the gore effects made it even more visually appealing. But the tired story and the not so compelling game play made it replayable but not as much as COD 4 or Mass Effect.

Crysis had insane graphics and in my opinion had a lot to do with the settings they choosed. The beach, forest canopys, a snow covered hillside, is not the most common scenes in a game. It was chosen to really maximize visual appearance. The game play, like gears of war, wasn't the best. What's the sense being invisible if as soon as you shoot your weapon it disables by itself.

Graphics can't redeem a game's poor gameplay.

I can understand the people who play games and are in awe of the eye-candy, but isn't the core of what makes us a gamers want to play the gameplay? I see a lot of people stating they care mostly about story, but if that story is wrapped around terrible mechanics you'll still play it? And, the flip-side of that is that if I were playing games for the story, I'd rarely play games. Do you story-only gamers pass up on games like Audiosurf, Super Mario Galaxy, Civilization (any), and about 95% of the games out there because the story is either missing entirely or rubbish?

Also, graphics are important. If I'm shelling out $50 (or more) for a game, it better not look like it was made ten (or more) years ago. And, if it does have lower-end graphics, the gameplay better be through the roof.

Skie7

Well said!

I really, really don't care about if a game has good graphics or not - I'm playing a GAME, not watching a tech-demo, so the GAMEPLAY is what counts. Sure, Crysis looks amazing... but so what? Graphics is the LAST thing I'm concerned about when I'm playing the game, I care more about the actual gameplay, the story, atmosphere, immersion.

Games these days focus too much on breathtaking, cinematic-style visuals and try too hard to be movies, and they forget that they are GAMES. This is why I hope that we reach photorealism as soon as possible, because then we can focus on the gameplay again. *sigh* I really miss the 90's.

What's the sense being invisible if as soon as you shoot your weapon it disables by itself.

d_originaldappa

The sense is that you can sneak around without being seen. It allows you to flank easily, hide efficiently (and regain your health while doing so, if needed), scope out an area while standing in plain view, get within melee range of an enemy without him seeing you, dash from cover to cover, and many other things.

And it literally takes a split second (without exaggerating) to switch from cloak, shoot a guy in the head, and switch back to cloak. This honestly makes the cloak a little broken if you choose to exploit it and use this technique for every kill; being able to shoot while cloaked would be ridiculously overpowered and would make the cloak more broken than it already is.

Art direction is far more important than graphics. Max payne 1 still looks good to me because it was well stylized. Deus Ex's visuals on the other hand... bug the crap out of me even though I love the game to death. TF2 is a great example of this. It certainly looks good, but even in 5-6 years it will look good because the art direction was unbelievably strong in the game... and it has so much character and such a strong well done theme.

I don't think its fair to say if graphics matter or don't... there are WAY too many things to consider when buying a game... uniqueness... story.. music... voice acting... animation... gameplay... value... how well its patched and maintained...price ... art direction/theme... graphics... how well its optimized.. difficulty... character development... competitiveness etc etc. Really, its only one part of the equation and its never a deal breaker. Sure I don't want to play something that looks god awful, but I will almost always look past imperfections if the game offers me a great and unique experience.

Technologically advanced i agree. how many games have been using this technology compared to the unreal engine?

Is the technology all that important? Some unreal engine games look like crap and play like crap. The cry engine has it's faults too. Graphics counts in a game but how much?
I've played some of the games most praised for graphic quality and not all of them are top in my list.

COD 4 was great, the graphics were good but the gameplay and a few other elements made me insane about this game. If theis game had terrible graphics, I would still play it.

Gears of war had some sweet graphics and the gore effects made it even more visually appealing. But the tired story and the not so compelling game play made it replayable but not as much as COD 4 or Mass Effect.

Crysis had insane graphics and in my opinion had a lot to do with the settings they choosed. The beach, forest canopys, a snow covered hillside, is not the most common scenes in a game. It was chosen to really maximize visual appearance. The game play, like gears of war, wasn't the best. What's the sense being invisible if as soon as you shoot your weapon it disables by itself.

Graphics can't redeem a game's poor gameplay.

d_originaldappa