Graphics Wh*res - VOTE OR DIE!

I prefer amazing graphics game with cool gameplay .  

Graphics are are easily rendered irrelevant if the rest of the game isn't up to par. For example, Doom 3 is a good game, excellent lighting etc. Never the less, I play parts of the game that are supposed to be frightening and shrug it off. However a game I've played through almost half a dozen times now and is almost 8 years old with archaic graphics still makes me on edge and nervous throughout, that game being System Shock 2.

Nice graphics can enhance a game, to be sure, but it's not the graphics that make or break a game. Neverwinter Nights 2 is a decent looking game by todays standards, yet there's no doubt Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape: Torment are still better all-round crpg's. See my point?

So no, I'm not a graphics whore. I'll take ugly but fun anyday over beautiful but dumb. And if a games got both brains and beauty, that's all the better!

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"]

I'm kinda wondering how much further it can really go, though.. Before there were noticable flaws in the way things and people looked in games, but now.. Changing Oblivion from medium to max settings with mods did help initially, but after while you get used to it and it's the same experience. Graphics are so amazingly close to real life that I believe we're getting dangerously close to your mind automatically and easily (enough) recognizing these objects and people and 'things' automatically, thus making much more increases in graphics- at least as far as the good lookingness goes- won't do a lot for the overall experience once you get 'into' the game. Save perhaps just stopping to look at the gorgeous landscapes. But for the most part, I think the only things now that can really affect the realism your mind sees in games, not necessarily graphically, is the smooth movement, and especially realistic movement and interaction of ingame objects, beings and landscapes..

Graphically, Crysis seems a decent amount more graphics power than Oblivion, and if you really pay attention, or just 'look' at them comparably you can tell it, but I have a feeling if you were actually playing the game, even your graphical experience will be pretty similar.. They both look what one would consider 'extremely realistic'. The physics, realistic character and object movement.. smooth movement could make all the difference, though.

Dracunos

Dracunos, you speak of the day I dream of!

Yes - one day in the not too distant future, graphics will become photorealistic. When we've reached that point, three things will happen:

1. Artistic quality and design will become more important \

2. Gameplay and theme will be the two most important components to a game

3. The programmers will drastically improve interactability and physics sims.

I can't wait!

photorealism is a long ways off, and I mean a long ways off. Every time a new graphical standard is set everyone is up in arms about the next generation having photorealism. I remember when people said that when the PS2, xbox, and gamecube came out, I bet they probably said that when 3D games started to come up for the first time as well, with the PS1 and N64. Photorealism is so far away it's not funny. I can assure you that the next generation of graphics still won't reach anywhere near photorealism and probably the one after that. In 3 generations? Maybe.

Physics, animations, and interactivity are things developers should be focusing on now, not later. These three things are by far one of the most under-developed features of games.

I agree, if anything graphics are becoming versions of exagerated reality. They add real stuff like lighting, but they make it way over the top. Just look at Oblivion; you turn on HDR and the cobblestones glow! I have been to Europe and seen my share of cobblestone streets, and they do not glow! And look at Crysis; I dont care if you can run 40 miles per hour, your vision isnt going to get blurred.

Its OK with me, though, since I play games as an escape from everyday life. The last thing I want in my games are visuals that are photorealistic.

At least they are getting to a point where there's not a whole lot more they can do, and I think it's sooner than you think.. For the most part, there's an extremely subtle different between pictures of stuff, and CG animations done really, really well. I think most of what makes it look 'animated' rather than looking 'real' is a lot in the way things move, and of course colors. You'd probably need ten times as many colors as the maximum number of colors you can possibly have on your PC for your eyes and brain to not be able to notice that everything's sorta.. brighter in games.. Or darker... All in all, it's still an art form, and when they want to instill emotion in you they will exaggerate the realism subtley.

I just think that it's like a curve.. The last many years, it's gone from maybe 40% realistic to 80% realistic in not THAT long.. Then it's gone recently from 80% to 90% is a little bit less time than it took from 40-80.. I have a feeling going from 90 to 97% photorealistic will take as long as it took to get from 40% to 90%.. And that last 97 to 99 would take much longer, but I don't think they're going to put enough money into it- it'd probably just increase slowly as we increase computer power in general. Obviously what percent we're at right now is all opinion, but 100% wouldn't be completely realistic.. I'm going to assume that the number of frequencies of light is infinite, as in you can have one at 50hz, one at 50.00001hz, and one color at 50.0002347 hz, and so on.. But our eyes can only pick up so much. I'm sure it's a lot, though : p

I really think at this point, realistic movement, motion, interactivity is going to do way more than less jagged lines, even more colors, etc.. And consider how people are creating these images.. There's no telling what kind of program will be invented in the future to aid graphics artists in making realistic looking images, but I could see that being limited eventually, even if computers have X more number of colors and whatnot. Considering my experience with games, and how graphics have been increasing, it's definitely a curve, and I think we're at a point in that curve where it's taking way too much to increase graphics very, very little. And I personally think it looks very realistic! But I guess I wear contacts, so nyah : p

About photorealism... it can already be achieved today.

In the movie, chronicles of narnia, the lion is 100% cg and its completely photorealistic, you can not tell it apart from a real life lion on screen. (read at ign article)

But one frame of him took 100 hours to render with top of the line workstation graphics design pcs. Now when gaming computers can get that  360,000 seconds per one frame, down to 0.03 seconds per frame (about 33 fps) then we can have photorealistic graphics in games :)

[QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"]

I'm kinda wondering how much further it can really go, though.. Before there were noticable flaws in the way things and people looked in games, but now.. Changing Oblivion from medium to max settings with mods did help initially, but after while you get used to it and it's the same experience. Graphics are so amazingly close to real life that I believe we're getting dangerously close to your mind automatically and easily (enough) recognizing these objects and people and 'things' automatically, thus making much more increases in graphics- at least as far as the good lookingness goes- won't do a lot for the overall experience once you get 'into' the game. Save perhaps just stopping to look at the gorgeous landscapes. But for the most part, I think the only things now that can really affect the realism your mind sees in games, not necessarily graphically, is the smooth movement, and especially realistic movement and interaction of ingame objects, beings and landscapes..

Graphically, Crysis seems a decent amount more graphics power than Oblivion, and if you really pay attention, or just 'look' at them comparably you can tell it, but I have a feeling if you were actually playing the game, even your graphical experience will be pretty similar.. They both look what one would consider 'extremely realistic'. The physics, realistic character and object movement.. smooth movement could make all the difference, though.

ElectricNZ

Dracunos, you speak of the day I dream of!

Yes - one day in the not too distant future, graphics will become photorealistic. When we've reached that point, three things will happen:

1. Artistic quality and design will become more important \

2. Gameplay and theme will be the two most important components to a game

3. The programmers will drastically improve interactability and physics sims.

I can't wait!

photorealism is a long ways off, and I mean a long ways off. Every time a new graphical standard is set everyone is up in arms about the next generation having photorealism. I remember when people said that when the PS2, xbox, and gamecube came out, I bet they probably said that when 3D games started to come up for the first time as well, with the PS1 and N64. Photorealism is so far away it's not funny. I can assure you that the next generation of graphics still won't reach anywhere near photorealism and probably the one after that. In 3 generations? Maybe.

Physics, animations, and interactivity are things developers should be focusing on now, not later. These three things are by far one of the most under-developed features of games.

I agree, if anything graphics are becoming versions of exagerated reality. They add real stuff like lighting, but they make it way over the top. Just look at Oblivion; you turn on HDR and the cobblestones glow! I have been to Europe and seen my share of cobblestone streets, and they do not glow! And look at Crysis; I dont care if you can run 40 miles per hour, your vision isnt going to get blurred.

Its OK with me, though, since I play games as an escape from everyday life. The last thing I want in my games are visuals that are photorealistic.

At least they are getting to a point where there's not a whole lot more they can do, and I think it's sooner than you think.. For the most part, there's an extremely subtle different between pictures of stuff, and CG animations done really, really well. I think most of what makes it look 'animated' rather than looking 'real' is a lot in the way things move, and of course colors. You'd probably need ten times as many colors as the maximum number of colors you can possibly have on your PC for your eyes and brain to not be able to notice that everything's sorta.. brighter in games.. Or darker... All in all, it's still an art form, and when they want to instill emotion in you they will exaggerate the realism subtley.

I just think that it's like a curve.. The last many years, it's gone from maybe 40% realistic to 80% realistic in not THAT long.. Then it's gone recently from 80% to 90% is a little bit less time than it took from 40-80.. I have a feeling going from 90 to 97% photorealistic will take as long as it took to get from 40% to 90%.. And that last 97 to 99 would take much longer, but I don't think they're going to put enough money into it- it'd probably just increase slowly as we increase computer power in general. Obviously what percent we're at right now is all opinion, but 100% wouldn't be completely realistic.. I'm going to assume that the number of frequencies of light is infinite, as in you can have one at 50hz, one at 50.00001hz, and one color at 50.0002347 hz, and so on.. But our eyes can only pick up so much. I'm sure it's a lot, though : p

I really think at this point, realistic movement, motion, interactivity is going to do way more than less jagged lines, even more colors, etc.. And consider how people are creating these images.. There's no telling what kind of program will be invented in the future to aid graphics artists in making realistic looking images, but I could see that being limited eventually, even if computers have X more number of colors and whatnot. Considering my experience with games, and how graphics have been increasing, it's definitely a curve, and I think we're at a point in that curve where it's taking way too much to increase graphics very, very little. And I personally think it looks very realistic! But I guess I wear contacts, so nyah : p

About photorealism... it can already be achieved today.

In the movie, chronicles of narnia, the lion is 100% cg and its completely photorealistic, you can not tell it apart from a real life lion on screen. (read at ign article)

But one frame of him took 100 hours to render with top of the line workstation graphics design pcs. Now when gaming computers can get that 360,000 seconds per one frame, down to 0.03 seconds per frame (about 33 fps) then we can have photorealistic graphics in games :)

But we're talking about real-time photo realism. Not CG.  

So before I vote, what's the definition?  I spend thousands on my gaming PC so I can really pump up the graphics... I love seeing all the new technologies coming out and games looking better and better.  But I'm not of the mindset that I won't play a game that doesn't have good graphics.  In fact my main game right now is FF II (IV) for SNES...

Ah screw it, I just voted that it's all about the gameplay.  Although I love games with great graphics, the effects of prettiness don't last long on me and the underlying game is left exposed.  I'm happy that most of the games that are pushing graphics these days are also really fun :)

I've been hoping and praying for developers to finaly.. FINALY get bored of doing the same stupid fantasy themes and start doing more sci-fi.Dracunos

Words of wisdom, if I've ever read them.  

All Hail Sci Fi!!! 

theres no option for inbetween....XBSHX

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

You fail at life.X360PS3AMD05

Best post on this thread!  It says so much (not about us, but about the poster).  I can't even figure out who is was directed at!  But no doubt, that man is licking his wounds.

So before I vote, what's the definition? I spend thousands on my gaming PC so I can really pump up the graphics... I love seeing all the new technologies coming out and games looking better and better. But I'm not of the mindset that I won't play a game that doesn't have good graphics. In fact my main game right now is FF II (IV) for SNES...

Ah screw it, I just voted that it's all about the gameplay. Although I love games with great graphics, the effects of prettiness don't last long on me and the underlying game is left exposed. I'm happy that most of the games that are pushing graphics these days are also really fun :)

MyopicCanadian

Don't be pretentious, Myopic Canadi.  You spent all that cash on lightening fast PC hardware; we all know you're really a graphics whore :-)

I wouldn't consider myself a graphics whore.  There has to be some middle ground.  Sure, pretty graphics are great, and I look foward to games that are on the bleeding edge.  But I also play older games from time to time.  Heck, right now I am re-playing divine divinity, and that game uses 2D sprites :P

And one of my most anticipated games this year is King's Bounty.  That game certainly doesn't look bad, but it is just barely on par with what Heroes did 2 years ago.  Ya...deffinetly...more of a gameplay guy...but I also do not hold any predjudice on great looking games either.  I am not the type to bash Crysis and say things like "it's just graphix, gameplay is going to suxxor!!!".  I say, hell ya!  Bring it on!

I'm really shocked that 61 people say they want graphics over gameplay. Now I know whats wrong with the gaming industry, the people buying them have bade taste. Same with the movie and music industry!basersx

I wouldn't consider myself a graphics whore. There has to be some middle ground. Sure, pretty graphics are great, and I look foward to games that are on the bleeding edge. But I also play older games from time to time. Heck, right now I am re-playing divine divinity, and that game uses 2D sprites :P

And one of my most anticipated games this year is King's Bounty. That game certainly doesn't look bad, but it is just barely on par with what Heroes did 2 years ago. Ya...deffinetly...more of a gameplay guy...but I also do not hold any predjudice on great looking games either. I am not the type to bash Crysis and say things like "it's just graphix, gameplay is going to suxxor!!!". I say, hell ya! Bring it on!

dnuggs40

Dnuggs, I've never called you a liar, but today I am.  Just look at your sig, graphics whore.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

I wouldn't consider myself a graphics whore. There has to be some middle ground. Sure, pretty graphics are great, and I look foward to games that are on the bleeding edge. But I also play older games from time to time. Heck, right now I am re-playing divine divinity, and that game uses 2D sprites :P

And one of my most anticipated games this year is King's Bounty. That game certainly doesn't look bad, but it is just barely on par with what Heroes did 2 years ago. Ya...deffinetly...more of a gameplay guy...but I also do not hold any predjudice on great looking games either. I am not the type to bash Crysis and say things like "it's just graphix, gameplay is going to suxxor!!!". I say, hell ya! Bring it on!

Jack_Summersby

Dnuggs, I've never called you a liar, but today I am.  Just look at your sig, graphics whore.

What does having a great computer have to do with being a graphics whore.  I have a great computer so I can play ALL games, everything from something that is last generation to games that are on the cutting edge.  I am well rounded, and graphics is not the only thing I consider, therefore I am no wh*re lol!

That is what being a true gaming connoisseur is all about!  I don't discriminate...I play them ALL!

I wouldn't consider myself a graphics whore. There has to be some middle ground. Sure, pretty graphics are great, and I look foward to games that are on the bleeding edge. But I also play older games from time to time. Heck, right now I am re-playing divine divinity, and that game uses 2D sprites :P

And one of my most anticipated games this year is King's Bounty. That game certainly doesn't look bad, but it is just barely on par with what Heroes did 2 years ago. Ya...deffinetly...more of a gameplay guy...but I also do not hold any predjudice on great looking games either. I am not the type to bash Crysis and say things like "it's just graphix, gameplay is going to suxxor!!!". I say, hell ya! Bring it on!

dnuggs40

I like people like you:) 

[QUOTE="basersx"]I'm really shocked that 61 people say they want graphics over gameplay. Now I know whats wrong with the gaming industry, the people buying them have bade taste. Same with the movie and music industry!Jack_Summersby

Yes you're right.  When I bought the 6800GT it was the top card and I paid $400 for it.  Since then however I have grown up and that's why I have not bought an 8800GTX!  So it's not true anymore. 

And buying a card is not really what makes you a graphics whore.  It's the games you choose to play and think are great.  I never liked Doom 3 but have always loved the GTA games.  I think that explains it.  GTA-SA has terrible graphics but is one of the best games of all time because of great story, great game play, and tons of content!

I will always take a GTA over a Doom 3 or FEAR!  And that is the main point.

What does having a great computer have to do with being a graphics whore. I have a great computer so I can play ALL games, everything from something that is last generation to games that are on the cutting edge. I am well rounded, and graphics is not the only thing I consider, therefore I am no wh*re lol!dnuggs40

Dnuggs, try and understand that I'm doing this for you. I want to bring you out of that dark, depressing closet, and into into the beautiful, high-res light of day!

Your PC is nearly as good as you can buy, including an 8800 series video card. There are no games that require such horsepower to run - and there won't be for at least three+ years, so why spend all the cash? You could have bought a lesser PC, played games at ugly resolutions, and spent the rest of that that money on yourself, your family, or more games, but instead you picked a PC that can MAX any thing you throw at it.

Dnugss, dearest of all my friends (MP2), I am willing to work with you for as long as it takes until you confess your true nature.

^ Exactly.

I paid $400 for my 6800GT when it was a top card and it was way more powerful than any games out needed.  By the time games did come out that needed that kind of power you could get the 6800GT for like $180-$200.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]What does having a great computer have to do with being a graphics whore. I have a great computer so I can play ALL games, everything from something that is last generation to games that are on the cutting edge. I am well rounded, and graphics is not the only thing I consider, therefore I am no wh*re lol!Jack_Summersby

Dnuggs, try and understand that I'm doing this for you. I want to bring you out of that dark, depressing closet, and into into the beautiful, high-res light of day!

Your PC is nearly as good as you can buy, including an 8800 series video card. There are no games that require such horsepower to run - and there won't be for at least three+ years, so why spend all the cash? You could have bought a lesser PC, played games at ugly resolutions, and spent the rest of that that money on yourself, your family, or more games, but instead you picked a PC that can MAX any thing you throw at it.

Dnugss, dearest of all my friends (MP2), I am willing to work with you for as long as it takes until you confess your true nature.

Maybe becuase I have the cash to spend?  So why would I go cheap...and have to upgrade in a year?  I have found going on the cheap is actualy MORE expensive.  I buy my computer parts to make my hobby as stress free and enjoyable as possible. 

"and spent the rest of that that money on yourself, your family, or more games, but instead you picked a PC that can MAX any thing you throw at it."

Maybe I have cash for both?  Just a thought :P

"Dnugss, dearest of all my friends (MP2), I am willing to work with you for as long as it takes until you confess your true nature. "

I am glad you like me too, but I think you are mis-characterizing me :)

Oh...and what does (MP2) mean?dnuggs40

Max Payne 2.  You should play it - the graphics aren't quite amazing anyore, but you shouldn't mind ;-) 

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]Oh...and what does (MP2) mean?Jack_Summersby

Max Payne 2.  You should play it - the graphics aren't quite amazing anyore, but you shouldn't mind ;-) 

Have played it...and it is great.

We're all graphics whores. People who say gameplay is everything and graphics, just haven't come out of the closet yet.

If graphics didn't matter, they wouldn't be getting better at such a fast pace.

F1_2004

Nonsense, I still play games that are butt-ugly and I like them far more then most games today.

Graphics are nice, but it's still the gameplay that matters, anyone who says differently needs to be hung, because you're the reason why there have been so few worthwhile games released lateky.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]Oh...and what does (MP2) mean?Jack_Summersby

Max Payne 2.  You should play it - the graphics aren't quite amazing anyore, but you shouldn't mind ;-) 

I thought MP2 was TERRIBLE!  The first one was so good, introduced bullet time, etc.  But the 2nd one was boring, the environment was just s depressing haunted type hospital and it was the shortest game ever.  I could not believe it, you just start playing it and its over.  It was like a glorified demo!

One of the most disappointing sequels of all time IMO.

So that's it? Given up? :Pdnuggs40

Yup!!! 

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]So that's it? Given up? :PJack_Summersby

Yup!!!

Now can you both hug? :P

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]So that's it? Given up? :PAlkpaz

Yup!!!

Wow this thread is getting a little uncomfortable - I'm a married man!

You fail at life.X360PS3AMD05

Still trying to figure out what this dude is talking about. 

If you really don't care at all you are weird. I care more about gameplay, but if the graphics are below a certain point, I don't really want to play the game as much.

Usually though, games with good gameplay also have good graphics. Games with subpar graphics are often subpar in gameplay as well.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]What does having a great computer have to do with being a graphics whore. I have a great computer so I can play ALL games, everything from something that is last generation to games that are on the cutting edge. I am well rounded, and graphics is not the only thing I consider, therefore I am no wh*re lol!Jack_Summersby

Dnuggs, try and understand that I'm doing this for you. I want to bring you out of that dark, depressing closet, and into into the beautiful, high-res light of day!

Your PC is nearly as good as you can buy, including an 8800 series video card. There are no games that require such horsepower to run - and there won't be for at least three+ years, so why spend all the cash? You could have bought a lesser PC, played games at ugly resolutions, and spent the rest of that that money on yourself, your family, or more games, but instead you picked a PC that can MAX any thing you throw at it.

Dnugss, dearest of all my friends (MP2), I am willing to work with you for as long as it takes until you confess your true nature.

:lol:

 Nice Max Payne quote there.

I have a QX6700, 2 Gigs of Ram and 2 X1950XTX in Crossfire, and I want in on the wh*rehouse, am I admited?

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]What does having a great computer have to do with being a graphics whore. I have a great computer so I can play ALL games, everything from something that is last generation to games that are on the cutting edge. I am well rounded, and graphics is not the only thing I consider, therefore I am no wh*re lol!Arcadius

Dnuggs, try and understand that I'm doing this for you. I want to bring you out of that dark, depressing closet, and into into the beautiful, high-res light of day!

Your PC is nearly as good as you can buy, including an 8800 series video card. There are no games that require such horsepower to run - and there won't be for at least three+ years, so why spend all the cash? You could have bought a lesser PC, played games at ugly resolutions, and spent the rest of that that money on yourself, your family, or more games, but instead you picked a PC that can MAX any thing you throw at it.

Dnugss, dearest of all my friends (MP2), I am willing to work with you for as long as it takes until you confess your true nature.

:lol:

Nice Max Payne quote there.

I have a QX6700, 2 Gigs of Ram and 2 X1950XTX in Crossfire, and I want in on the wh*rehouse, am I admited?

Good catch!

And YES you are definitely in the club.   Congratulations, you're officially a Graphics Whore!!!  We need some kind of GameSpot badge or something.  Say it loud, and wear it proud :-)

:lol: Yeah! Graphic Wh*rehouse elite! ATI be my pimp! :lol:

Gameplay for the win. Gameplay is what allows a game to last longer than six months on the market. StarCraft for the win.Fiefdom

Ha, you're not implying of course that Starcraft CG graphics where bad back in the days are you? Or that the graphics in general weren't quite good for the time? Me thinks you've come over to the Dark Side a long time ago too, and cling to the memory that brought you to us... :lol:

[QUOTE="Dracunos"]I've been hoping and praying for developers to finaly.. FINALY get bored of doing the same stupid fantasy themes and start doing more sci-fi.Jack_Summersby

Words of wisdom, if I've ever read them.

All Hail Sci Fi!!!

My words seem to be very wisdomous.

CG looks better than real stuff. well to me anywayLonelynight

I normally wouldn't agree, but like... Catgirls are so cute! I desire to procreate with a catgirl. Those cat-ears and tail can be cute in real life, but not as good. 

I would like to point out that with over 170 votes counted, the Graphics Whores are winning.

Woot!