Graphics Wh*res - VOTE OR DIE!

Graphics help bring you into the game. And some, mainly shadows, add gameplay. If you think graphics don't matter you should try playing Splinter Cell 1 with the shadows turned off.

The reasoning you guys are using is really silly. Just becuase people have good computers does not mean they are graphics wh*res. Maybe I have a different idea of what a graphics wh*re's deffinition is, and what it means to you. Does simply enjoying good graphics mean you are a GW? dnuggs40

When you're at the computer store, you have two choices:

1. Spend abut $1300, get a decent PC. This will play all current games, and all games for many years to come IF you are okay with turning down the graphics.

2. Spend as much as you can afford, or as much as necessary, to get a bad a$$ computer that maxes out all current games, and will play all games over the next few years at high and then medium settings. But that doesn't matter too much because by the time your PC can only push games at medium settings, you'll be upgrading the CPU, GPU, or maybe even the whole thing!

Even if you're well off, its still going to cost $1000+base price to max graphics, and if your aren't a GW, you can find other ways to put those greenbacks to use.  Hell, you'd be better off buying lotto tickets than paying the premium for that incremental performance increase.  It's not as if the E6300 has a shorter half-life than the E6600.   It's not as if the 8800 GTX will keep chugging away years after the 8600 has shorted out.

You may like old games that have (by today's standards) craptastic graphics, and you may dislike games that have great graphics (e.g. I think Oblivion is highly overrated). BUT if you insist on a top-notch computer pushing top-notch graphics on all new games that you buy, you are a graphics whore.

Some people really don't care, but We do, and We are proud.

"1. Spend abut $1300, get a decent PC. This will play all current games, and all games for many years to come IF you are okay with turning down the graphics."

But I spent $900 for my current system...I dont see your point.  And the last time I upgraded was 2 1/2 years ago.

"Hell, you'd be better off buying lotto tickets than paying the premium for that incremental performance increase. "

Really?  c'mon now lol.  I know you are probally just trying to make a point here, but thats a bit silly...

"BUT if you insist on a top-notch computer pushing top-notch graphics on all new games that you buy, you are a graphics whore. "

That's why I asked you your deffinition for GW...and that explanation is not inline with what a GW is.  Having a top notch system to play current games does not mean you are a GW.  It could mean many things, like in my case, I have the dough, so why not?  Why not experience pc gaming in all it's glory if I can?  What that doesn't mean, is that I choose games and only play games with cutting edge graphics, which is what a GW is.  A GW is someone who doesnt care about anything other then the visual aspect of games.  Who will make escuses for piss poor gameplay if the visual appeal is there.  Who can't play games a generation or two behind without saying it looks like crap, therefore it *is* crap.

"1. Spend abut $1300, get a decent PC. This will play all current games, and all games for many years to come IF you are okay with turning down the graphics."

But I spent $900 for my current system...I dont see your point. And the last time I upgraded was 2 1/2 years ago.

"Hell, you'd be better off buying lotto tickets than paying the premium for that incremental performance increase. "

Really? c'mon now lol. I know you are probally just trying to make a point here, but thats a bit silly...dnuggs40

I'm quite serious. A more expensive computer is not a "better" computer - that kind of thinking drives business people to upgrade every year or two so that their excel spread sheet opens a few milliseconds faster. The extra money they're blowing would be better spent on anything that has a a greater return on value - and with $1000 worth of lotto tickets, you just might make a few G's back. (Side note: I don't gamble, nor do I encourage it.)

"BUT if you insist on a top-notch computer pushing top-notch graphics on all new games that you buy, you are a graphics whore. "

That's why I asked you your deffinition for GW...and that explanation is not inline with what a GW is. Having a top notch system to play current games does not mean you are a GW. It could mean many things, like in my case, I have the dough, so why not? Why not experience pc gaming in all it's glory if I can? What that doesn't mean, is that I choose games and only play games with cutting edge graphics, which is what a GW is. A GW is someone who doesnt care about anything other then the visual aspect of games. Who will make escuses for piss poor gameplay if the visual appeal is there. Who can't play games a generation or two behind without saying it looks like crap, therefore it *is* crap.

dnuggs40

I really hope you're not implying that I am not a true Graphics Whore. Them's fightin words. I started this thread - I have a reputation to live up to!!!

(But what you're saying is completely true; e.g. Prey was beautiful but boring and I hated it).

Dnuggs your a sound whore too! :P

X-Fi :) You could have gotten by with a SB Live or Audigy

Why spend so much on something that just puts out sound?!

The reason for the 8800 is simple.. DX10. but why bother?! you could have saved even more with a 8600.

Instead of building your comp for 900.. you could have kicked it down a few more hundred..

BTW, I liked Prey :P

But I also liked Deus Ex IW.. so I may have strange tastes.. :)

True a business person who only uses a comp for spreadsheets has no reason to upgrade.. (unless its for security.. which MS claimed Vista to be the most secure OS.. course they say this every time they release a new OS)

"I'm quite serious. A more expensive computer is not a "better" computer "

I agree, but in my example, I have showed that I paid less that what you deemed a moderate computer...and I should be fine for the next 2-3 years.  I am an advocate of smart upgrades. 

"that kind of thinking drives business people to upgrade every year or two so that their excel spread sheet opens a few milliseconds faster."

Actually, I think poor hardware knowledge leads to this type of purchasing.

"The extra money they're blowing would be better spent on anything that has a a greater return on value - and with $1000 worth of lotto tickets, you just might make a few G's back."

Is there a good ROS in buying a $1000 worth of lotto tickets?  "Maybe" making a profit doesn't sound like sound investing principles.

"Side note: I don't gamble, nor do I encourage it."

I don't either, though I just gambled for the first time in my life on mother's day.  I took my wifey on a cruize.  Was pretty fun, though I only played the nickle slots :P  I actually made $15...not bad!

"I really hope you're not implying that I am not a true Graphics Whore. Them's fightin words. I started this thread - I have a reputation to live up to!!! "

lol!  I would never imply you are not what you say you are!  I believe you, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a GW!

Dnuggs your a sound whore too! :P

X-Fi :) You could have gotten by with a SB Live or Audigy 

Why spend so much on something that just puts out sound?!

The reason for the 8800 is simple.. DX10. but why bother?! you could have saved even more with a 8600.

Instead of building your comp for 900.. you could have kicked it down a few more hundred..

 

Alkpaz

The X-Fi has digital output, and my 7.1 surround sound system sound WAAAY better with this then using integrated sound.  I am a audiophile, that I will man up to.  But I also listen to lots of music on my computer, so it's not game specific.  And look at the prices for a X-Fi vs a Audigy...for $20 more why not have better sound?  It's sound advice :P

And what is the point of getting a 8600 if I can comfortably afford the 8800?  Why make myself upgrade in a year if I can spend the extra $100 now, and not have to upgrade later?  I have said this before, going cheap in pc gaming actually ends up more expensive in the long run.

True enough Dnuggs ... though I'm still using 5.1s with a Fat4lity.. need to git me some nice digital 7.1s :)

But why did you bother upgrading now? Do you use Vista ATM? Why not spend the bucks until Vista gets its first SP? 

BTW, what was your old comp? I'm still hammerin it out with a P4 3.6

True enough Dnuggs ... though I'm still using 5.1s with a Fat4lity.. need to git me some nice digital 7.1s :)

But why did you bother upgrading now? Do you use Vista ATM? Why not spend the bucks until Vista gets its first SP? 

BTW, what was your old comp? I'm still hammerin it out with a P4 3.6

Alkpaz

"BTW, what was your old comp? I'm still hammerin it out with a P4 3.6"

PIV 3.0

1GB 3200 Ram

6800GT

Bought this stuff over 2 years ago.  Has served me well!  Though the single core cpu really had a tough time keeping up with games.  My 6800GT still was actually pretty good, and the only game that really gave it problems was STALKER.  I tend to always upgrade every 2 revisions (get 6 series, skip 7 and get 8 ).  And i always try and get flagship models.  They may be more expensive, but they are powerhouses and last a long time.  I am very pleased with the way my 6800GT hung in there.

"But why did you bother upgrading now? Do you use Vista ATM? Why not spend the bucks until Vista gets its first SP? "

You know...good question.  I guess it just "felt right".  Core 2 Duo's are fantastic CPU's, and I was dying to get off my AGP based system.  I also do compiling of apps and programming, so this helped my business stuff as well.  And no, don't have Vsta yet, though I use it at work from time to time.  Like you said, it is in dire need of a SP.  And this is not even related to gaming, just doing business related stuff is a nightmare.

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

I always tell myself and other people that it is all about the gameplay but let's face it, I am a graphics ho.

Admitting it is the first step........ 

Am I the only one who is a straight-up, unabashed Graphics Whore?

Now, I won't play a game if it doesn't also have fun gameplay and/or a great storyline, but I refuse to play games that are ugly.

Sort of like with other forms of entertainment: I don't like ugly characters on my TV shows or in the movies I watch. I want my female (and male) actresses to be hot! Sure, this makes the shows unrealistic, but if I want to get a dose of real-world ugly, I'll just head to my local Walmart. You don't see my ugly mug on TV - why should I have to see yours?

So I say:

Shallow gamers of the world, Unite!

ALL HAIL KILLER GRAPHICS!!!

Love,
Jack

(A True Graphics Whore)

Jack_Summersby

vanity is a bad thing. 

Am I the only one who is a straight-up, unabashed Graphics Whore?

Now, I won't play a game if it doesn't also have fun gameplay and/or a great storyline, but I refuse to play games that are ugly.

Sort of like with other forms of entertainment: I don't like ugly characters on my TV shows or in the movies I watch. I want my female (and male) actresses to be hot! Sure, this makes the shows unrealistic, but if I want to get a dose of real-world ugly, I'll just head to my local Walmart. You don't see my ugly mug on TV - why should I have to see yours?

So I say:

Shallow gamers of the world, Unite!

ALL HAIL KILLER GRAPHICS!!!

Love,
Jack

(A True Graphics Whore)

Jack_Summersby

Jack, I've got to admit I'm %100 behind you on this one, and I think there's a real solid rationale for the position--one that goes beyond simple matters of opinion. This has long been a special subject to me...

Here's my thinking. The position which nearly half of your survery respondants have subscribed to (it's all about the gameplay, baby) defies the very nature of our pastime. As a form of entertainment or as a means of storytelling, contemporary video gaming is a distinctly visual medium. Film is a visual medium as well; so is theater. Illustrated books, picture books, graphic novels and comic strips are as well. The argument is like insisting that a car's engine is more important than its wheels.

What does that mean, exactly? It means you if you're evaluating game content, you can't seperate the visual and the non-visual into fully independent parts. You can evaluate each seperately (ie, this game has a great combat system; this game has beautiful art direction), but you can't fully appreciate the positives and negatives of either without observing how they interact. In a medium like film, theater, or gaming, the visuals exist to support the non-visual content, and visa-versa. A movie script conceived without the intent to accompany it with the perfect visual storytelling isn't a movie script: it's a book.

NOW, does that mean that a film has to have great special effects to be wonderful, or even good? No, but good acting is pretty important--and acting, my friends, is a visual art. Cinematography is important, too. A good movie can be poorly filmed, but wouldn't that movie be better if the lighting and film exposure were better suited to the script?

The point here is that a film, piece of theater, or a game could be great or even legendary without the best visuals in the business... but that more appropriate, better-conceived visuals are always a plus. UFO:XCOM is a great game with primitive visuals, but given the choice between a two versions sporting identical gameplay but different graphics engines, who wouldn't chose the more attractive? Or the more visually interesting? Or atmospheric?

Don't be silly, guys. Your gaming experience is fed by the combined effect of visual and non-visual content. Gameplay doesn't trump all. If you really feel that it does, you might switch over to tabletop gaming.

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

Am I the only one who is a straight-up, unabashed Graphics Whore?

Now, I won't play a game if it doesn't also have fun gameplay and/or a great storyline, but I refuse to play games that are ugly.

Sort of like with other forms of entertainment: I don't like ugly characters on my TV shows or in the movies I watch. I want my female (and male) actresses to be hot! Sure, this makes the shows unrealistic, but if I want to get a dose of real-world ugly, I'll just head to my local Walmart. You don't see my ugly mug on TV - why should I have to see yours?

So I say:

Shallow gamers of the world, Unite!

ALL HAIL KILLER GRAPHICS!!!

Love,
Jack

(A True Graphics Whore)

lokstah

Jack, I've got to admit I'm %100 behind you on this one, and I think there's a real solid rationale for the position--one that goes beyond simple matters of opinion. This has long been a special subject to me...

Here's my thinking. The position which nearly half of your survery respondants have subscribed to (it's all about the gameplay, baby) defies the very nature of our pastime. As a form of entertainment or as a means of storytelling, contemporary video gaming is a distinctly visual medium. Film is a visual medium as well; so is theater. Illustrated books, picture books, graphic novels and comic strips are as well. The argument is like insisting that a car's engine is more important than its wheels.

What does that mean, exactly? It means you if you're evaluating game content, you can't seperate the visual and the non-visual into fully independent parts. You can evaluate each seperately (ie, this game has a great combat system; this game has beautiful art direction), but you can't fully appreciate the positives and negatives of either without observing how they interact. In a medium like film, theater, or gaming, the visuals exist to support the non-visual content, and visa-versa. A movie script conceived without the intent to accompany it with the perfect visual storytelling isn't a movie script: it's a book.

NOW, does that mean that a film has to have great special effects to be wonderful, or even good? No, but good acting is pretty important--and acting, my friends, is a visual art. Cinematography is important, too. A good movie can be poorly filmed, but wouldn't that movie be better if the lighting and film exposure were better suited to the script?

The point here is that a film, piece of theater, or a game could be great or even legendary without the best visuals in the business... but that more appropriate, better-conceived visuals are always a plus. UFO:XCOM is a great game with primitive visuals, but given the choice between a two versions sporting identical gameplay but different graphics engines, who wouldn't chose the more attractive? Or the more visually interesting? Or atmospheric?

Don't be silly, guys. Your gaming experience is fed by the combined effect of visual and non-visual content. Gameplay doesn't trump all. If you really feel that it does, you might switch over to tabletop gaming.

QTF... truly an excellent post.. Although I still feel movies like Twister were spearheaded due to the nice CGI. Or movies like Star Wars Episode II/III are mostly CGI.

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

Also they would probably be happy still having just a SNES!

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]

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.

daytona_178

Also they would probably be happy still having just a SNES!

That is the craziest sig I've ever seen. 

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

And if graphics DID matter, I wouldn't still be playing CS 1.6, UT99, Starsiege Tribes, Gunbound, and MapleStory. 

I agree, I WON'T PLAY A GAME THAT IS UGLY, Has a bad storyline. Or bad gameplay. I need decent graphics, a storyline that actually goes somewhere (unless its an online FPS), and ofcourse some decent gameplay. Otherwise, I find I get bored... My eyes hurt... And well... Enough lol.

But I must add to this, there are games that graphics don't matter. Like MapleStory which I used to play, It was meant to be more of a 2D/Anime style MMORPG, but well the leveling took to long. So I gave up on it XD. 

Graphics means a lot. Note why there is so much hype about Crysis. If you dont have that sense of realism and atmosphere, the game gets old quickly, as theres nothing to keep you on your feet. Sound plays a big part in this too, sound effects help gameplay imensly, which is why STALKER is so great, the atompshere created by sound effects is brilliant.

Alot of things contribute to good gameplay, and graphics is one of them. People who like 1.6, are *cough cough* fan-boys, to test this theory, insult 1.6 in front of a counter strike 1.6 gamer, you will get a snappy reply... *fan boys* :p 

 Sure i play 1.6 once in a while because its wierdly fun online, but singleplayer gameplay isnt there, its purely for online plessure. But no way is it my faveroute game, it gets boring quickly, simply because the game has no atmosphere. All it is 1 team v another and you fight... thats it... nothing else. I only play it because its difficult... everything is so unrealisitc its laughable... and that my friends is why you play 1.6... too laugh at its crapness and pwn noobs.

Am I the only one who is a straight-up, unabashed Graphics Whore?

Now, I won't play a game if it doesn't also have fun gameplay and/or a great storyline, but I refuse to play games that are ugly.

Sort of like with other forms of entertainment: I don't like ugly characters on my TV shows or in the movies I watch. I want my female (and male) actresses to be hot! Sure, this makes the shows unrealistic, but if I want to get a dose of real-world ugly, I'll just head to my local Walmart. You don't see my ugly mug on TV - why should I have to see yours?

So I say:

Shallow gamers of the world, Unite!

ALL HAIL KILLER GRAPHICS!!!

Love,
Jack

(A True Graphics Whore)

Jack_Summersby

if the only thing you expect from a game is a fancy graphics - then go and see some movies - gameplay is the most important thing in games - if gameplay is boring you won't play it more than 5 min - Diablo 2 has 2D graphics - i don't care about that coz it's great game.

i don't know even why half of the people voted for graphics - but whatever

lol XD...

im just a grapichs whore because i love eye candy.... and i can afford the parts to get it...

However... im not shallow, and will play on most games, but i just prefer the games that actually look good. 

lol XD...

im just a grapichs whore because i love eye candy.... and i can afford the parts to get it...

However... im not shallow, and will play on most games, but i just prefer the games that actually look good. 

And if graphics DID matter, I wouldn't still be playing CS 1.6, UT99, Starsiege Tribes, Gunbound, and MapleStory. bloodychimp

if the only thing you expect from a game is a fancy graphics - then go and see some movies - gameplay is the most important thing in games - if gameplay is boring you won't play it more than 5 min - Diablo 2 has 2D graphics - i don't care about that coz it's great game.

i don't know even why half of the people voted for graphics - but whatever

PredatorRules

You guys are missing the point by about 4 light years, with all due respect.

Bloodymonkey, of course it's possible to enjoy games with dated graphics--and it's possible to enjoy games many of your peers would consider ugly. There's a distinct reason that's possible. One: in these cases, the games mentioned offer gameplay which you, personally, find exceptional enough that it's possible to ignore or look beyond the visual shortcomings. And two: personally, deep down, you find something about the visual presentations of those games satisfying, or appropriate (ie, you kind of like the way they look). But if graphics didn't matter to you, you wouldn't be wasting your time with video games in the first place--you'd be playing tabletop games, or just reading a damn book.

Video games are a visual medium. The gaming experience is the combined effect of the visual and non-visual elements, together. You have a particularly high tolerance for less advanced visuals, but if the developers of your old games sent you updated versions with precisely the same gameplay and performance potential for your machine--but prettier visuals--would you honestly deny that those versions offered a richer experience? Because I'd argue they certainly would, almost objectively... because again, we're talking about a visual medium here. All else equal, things that look better are usually better.

PredatorRules, no one here, self-annointed graphics whore or otherwise, argues that the only thing they look for in a game is fancy graphics.

[QUOTE="bloodychimp"]And if graphics DID matter, I wouldn't still be playing CS 1.6, UT99, Starsiege Tribes, Gunbound, and MapleStory. lokstah

if the only thing you expect from a game is a fancy graphics - then go and see some movies - gameplay is the most important thing in games - if gameplay is boring you won't play it more than 5 min - Diablo 2 has 2D graphics - i don't care about that coz it's great game.

i don't know even why half of the people voted for graphics - but whatever

PredatorRules

You guys are missing the point by about 4 light years, with all due respect.

Bloodymonkey, of course it's possible to enjoy games with dated graphics--and it's possible to enjoy games many of your peers would consider ugly. There's a distinct reason that's possible. One: in these cases, the games mentioned offer gameplay which you, personally, find exceptional enough that it's possible to ignore or look beyond the visual shortcomings. And two: personally, deep down, you find something about the visual presentations of those games satisfying, or appropriate (ie, you kind of like the way they look). But if graphics didn't matter to you, you wouldn't be wasting your time with video games in the first place--you'd be playing tabletop games, or just reading a damn book.

Video games are a visual medium. The gaming experience is the combined effect of the visual and non-visual elements, together. You have a particularly high tolerance for less advanced visuals, but if the developers of your old games sent you updated versions with precisely the same gameplay and performance potential for your machine--but prettier visuals--would you honestly deny that those versions offered a richer experience? Because I'd argue they certainly would, almost objectively... because again, we're talking about a visual medium here. All else equal, things that look better are usually better.

PredatorRules, no one here, self-annointed graphics whore or otherwise, argues that the only thing they look for in a game is fancy graphics.

This is not right.  Movies are a visual medium too but I see not advantage in better special effects in movies at all.  Take an all time classic like Citizen Kane.  There is no way the movie would be better had Orson Wells had the cameras of today to make the very same movie.  It would be worse or at the very least no different, period. 

Another example - Star Wars.  The fist 3 are way, way better than the second 3.  And it makes no difference that the second 3 had decades more advance special effects, it didn't help the movies at all because its the story and actors that make a movie great, NOT THE SPECIAL EFFECTS!

The reasoning you guys are using is really silly.  Just becuase people have good computers does not mean they are graphics wh*res.  Maybe I have a different idea of what a graphics wh*re's deffinition is, and what it means to you.  Does simply enjoying good graphics mean you are a GW?  dnuggs40

Ahh, but it is the first step...that is how you begin. You buy a game (or a game console for that matter) because it has nice graphics. You enjoy those graphics. More games arrive with better graphics. Your computer (or console) begins to have trouble with those newer games (or in the case of a console it just doesn't run them). You know you need to see and play with these newer graphical innovations. You buy the best card so that you can see those graphics. You start the game, go to options, choose graphics, max out them, play the game. Graphic Wh*re!  :lol:

[QUOTE="lokstah"][QUOTE="bloodychimp"]And if graphics DID matter, I wouldn't still be playing CS 1.6, UT99, Starsiege Tribes, Gunbound, and MapleStory. basersx

if the only thing you expect from a game is a fancy graphics - then go and see some movies - gameplay is the most important thing in games - if gameplay is boring you won't play it more than 5 min - Diablo 2 has 2D graphics - i don't care about that coz it's great game.

i don't know even why half of the people voted for graphics - but whatever

PredatorRules

You guys are missing the point by about 4 light years, with all due respect.

Bloodymonkey, of course it's possible to enjoy games with dated graphics--and it's possible to enjoy games many of your peers would consider ugly. There's a distinct reason that's possible. One: in these cases, the games mentioned offer gameplay which you, personally, find exceptional enough that it's possible to ignore or look beyond the visual shortcomings. And two: personally, deep down, you find something about the visual presentations of those games satisfying, or appropriate (ie, you kind of like the way they look). But if graphics didn't matter to you, you wouldn't be wasting your time with video games in the first place--you'd be playing tabletop games, or just reading a damn book.

Video games are a visual medium. The gaming experience is the combined effect of the visual and non-visual elements, together. You have a particularly high tolerance for less advanced visuals, but if the developers of your old games sent you updated versions with precisely the same gameplay and performance potential for your machine--but prettier visuals--would you honestly deny that those versions offered a richer experience? Because I'd argue they certainly would, almost objectively... because again, we're talking about a visual medium here. All else equal, things that look better are usually better.

PredatorRules, no one here, self-annointed graphics whore or otherwise, argues that the only thing they look for in a game is fancy graphics.

This is not right.  Movies are a visual medium too but I see not advantage in better special effects in movies at all.  Take an all time classic like Citizen Kane.  There is no way the movie would be better had Orson Wells had the cameras of today to make the very same movie.  It would be worse, period. 

Another example - Star Wars.  The fist 3 are way, way better than the second 3.  And it makes no difference that the second 3 had decades more advance special effects, it didn't help the movies at all because its the story and actors that make a movie great, NOT THE SPECIAL EFFECTS!

Ah but perhaps you were arround when the first 3 started, which is also my case. But them new kids might think that the first 3 where crap, being more "graphicwise" because of the advancement in special effects. But as blasphemous as it sounds, a lot of people might think that way.

One thing I FIRMLY believe is that graphics are part of gameplay. The better the graphics are the more I can be pulled into the game and enjoy it.

If the guys hands look like mittens with lines drawn on for fingers, that takes away from the game's ability to draw me into it's world.

[QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="lokstah"][QUOTE="bloodychimp"]And if graphics DID matter, I wouldn't still be playing CS 1.6, UT99, Starsiege Tribes, Gunbound, and MapleStory. Arcadius

if the only thing you expect from a game is a fancy graphics - then go and see some movies - gameplay is the most important thing in games - if gameplay is boring you won't play it more than 5 min - Diablo 2 has 2D graphics - i don't care about that coz it's great game.

i don't know even why half of the people voted for graphics - but whatever

PredatorRules

You guys are missing the point by about 4 light years, with all due respect.

Bloodymonkey, of course it's possible to enjoy games with dated graphics--and it's possible to enjoy games many of your peers would consider ugly. There's a distinct reason that's possible. One: in these cases, the games mentioned offer gameplay which you, personally, find exceptional enough that it's possible to ignore or look beyond the visual shortcomings. And two: personally, deep down, you find something about the visual presentations of those games satisfying, or appropriate (ie, you kind of like the way they look). But if graphics didn't matter to you, you wouldn't be wasting your time with video games in the first place--you'd be playing tabletop games, or just reading a damn book.

Video games are a visual medium. The gaming experience is the combined effect of the visual and non-visual elements, together. You have a particularly high tolerance for less advanced visuals, but if the developers of your old games sent you updated versions with precisely the same gameplay and performance potential for your machine--but prettier visuals--would you honestly deny that those versions offered a richer experience? Because I'd argue they certainly would, almost objectively... because again, we're talking about a visual medium here. All else equal, things that look better are usually better.

PredatorRules, no one here, self-annointed graphics whore or otherwise, argues that the only thing they look for in a game is fancy graphics.

This is not right.  Movies are a visual medium too but I see not advantage in better special effects in movies at all.  Take an all time classic like Citizen Kane.  There is no way the movie would be better had Orson Wells had the cameras of today to make the very same movie.  It would be worse, period. 

Another example - Star Wars.  The fist 3 are way, way better than the second 3.  And it makes no difference that the second 3 had decades more advance special effects, it didn't help the movies at all because its the story and actors that make a movie great, NOT THE SPECIAL EFFECTS!

Ah but perhaps you were arround when the first 3 started, which is also my case. But them new kids might think that the first 3 where crap, being more "graphicwise" because of the advancement in special effects. But as blasphemous as it sounds, a lot of people might think that way.

Start a poll on that.  I know for a fact that the majority of kids/people that were not around for the first 3 SW movies still think they are better than the second 3.

And I was not born yet when Citizen Kane of any of the other movies that would make my top 10 list, Casablanca, 3rd Man, Dr Strangelove, The graduate, etc. etc.  That is just ridicules!  You would have to have some pretty bad taste in everything to think all new stuff is better than all older stuff!

[QUOTE="lokstah"]You guys are missing the point by about 4 light years, with all due respect.

Bloodymonkey, of course it's possible to enjoy games with dated graphics--and it's possible to enjoy games many of your peers would consider ugly. There's a distinct reason that's possible. One: in these cases, the games mentioned offer gameplay which you, personally, find exceptional enough that it's possible to ignore or look beyond the visual shortcomings. And two: personally, deep down, you find something about the visual presentations of those games satisfying, or appropriate (ie, you kind of like the way they look). But if graphics didn't matter to you, you wouldn't be wasting your time with video games in the first place--you'd be playing tabletop games, or just reading a damn book.

Video games are a visual medium. The gaming experience is the combined effect of the visual and non-visual elements, together. You have a particularly high tolerance for less advanced visuals, but if the developers of your old games sent you updated versions with precisely the same gameplay and performance potential for your machine--but prettier visuals--would you honestly deny that those versions offered a richer experience? Because I'd argue they certainly would, almost objectively... because again, we're talking about a visual medium here. All else equal, things that look better are usually better.

PredatorRules, no one here, self-annointed graphics whore or otherwise, argues that the only thing they look for in a game is fancy graphics.

basersx

This is not right.  Movies are a visual medium too but I see not advantage in better special effects in movies at all.  Take an all time classic like Citizen Kane.  There is no way the movie would be better had Orson Wells had the cameras of today to make the very same movie.  It would be worse, period. 

Another example - Star Wars.  The fist 3 are way, way better than the second 3.  And it makes no difference that the second 3 had decades more advance special effects, it didn't help the movies at all because its the story and actors that make a movie great, NOT THE SPECIAL EFFECTS!

You're oversimplifying my point. If you refer to a post of mine a few pages back, I explain this in more detail--in fact, I think movies, theater, and even illustrated literature are a great analogue for this discussion. I'm certainly not equating strength of visuals in gaming to special effects in film.

The "visual medium" point is simply a way to express that visual and non-visual content are absolutely linked in these art forms; Citizen Kane, for instance, was written explicitly for the screen. The screenplay, Orson would argue, is a pile of pages containing only a fraction of the intended work of art. Citizen Kane, unlike a novel he might have written with the same subject, was conceived as a visual experience. We, the audience, would watch Orson Welles' screenplay expressed through acting (also a visual art form), camera work, lighting, and various forms of production design. (You picked, by the way, a famously delicious example from a visual perspective--Citizen Kane is a landmark of cinematographic technology and artistry. Welles was a brilliant filmaker, not a novelist; he loved creating stunning visuals, and he wasn't afraid of technology). You're not going to find a film historian or critic who wouldn't argue that part of Citizen Kane's brilliance lies in Welles' prowess as a visual genius.

Then there's my career. I'm a production designer for theatre. I conceive and design scenery (and costumes too, a little) for plays and musicals. Sometimes, that means I want to have enourmous hydraulic rotating platforms installed. But I'd like to think I'm a mature enough designer to understand that sometimes, the very best space for a play to inhabit is little or nothing at all--maybe just a dirt floor, or a red chair in front of a white tile wall; maybe, the show just wants a bare stage. But by definition, the scenic designer is a visuals whore... whether we're talking about a giant fiber optic-laced pirate ship set, or a bare black floor set, I care deeply that my work enhances the show. It's my job.

In film, and theatre, and illustrated literature, and yes, in gaming, the total experience depends on wise use of both visual and non-visual elements. It's possible for the balance to be off in either direction. The Star Wars prequels are the easiest example--those movies invested so much not just in special effects technology, but in elaborately conceived environments and costumes--but they had weak stories and cardboard characters. And we see games released every week that look marvelous in screenshots, but just aren't fun.

No one is arguing that good visuals necessarily make a good product in any medium.

All I'm arguing is that these are mediums which take us places with our eyes. That's the filmakers job, and the game developers' job too. Whether we're watching a quiet conversation in a serious drama on screen, or if we're just arranging armies on a strategic map in an turn-based strategy game, the look affects how it feels. Good developers and designers use that power wisely, period.

And I was not born yet when Citizen Kane of any of the other movies that would make my top 10 list, Casablanca, 3rd Man, Dr Strangelove, The graduate, etc. etc.  That is just ridicules!  You would have to have some pretty bad taste in everything to think all new stuff is better than all older stuff!basersx

You just listed a few more movies with stunning visuals. Casablanca? The 3rd Man? Any Kubrick film? These movies were magnificent visual achievments, buddy.

[QUOTE="Arcadius"][QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="lokstah"][QUOTE="bloodychimp"]And if graphics DID matter, I wouldn't still be playing CS 1.6, UT99, Starsiege Tribes, Gunbound, and MapleStory. basersx

if the only thing you expect from a game is a fancy graphics - then go and see some movies - gameplay is the most important thing in games - if gameplay is boring you won't play it more than 5 min - Diablo 2 has 2D graphics - i don't care about that coz it's great game.

i don't know even why half of the people voted for graphics - but whatever

PredatorRules

You guys are missing the point by about 4 light years, with all due respect.

Bloodymonkey, of course it's possible to enjoy games with dated graphics--and it's possible to enjoy games many of your peers would consider ugly. There's a distinct reason that's possible. One: in these cases, the games mentioned offer gameplay which you, personally, find exceptional enough that it's possible to ignore or look beyond the visual shortcomings. And two: personally, deep down, you find something about the visual presentations of those games satisfying, or appropriate (ie, you kind of like the way they look). But if graphics didn't matter to you, you wouldn't be wasting your time with video games in the first place--you'd be playing tabletop games, or just reading a damn book.

Video games are a visual medium. The gaming experience is the combined effect of the visual and non-visual elements, together. You have a particularly high tolerance for less advanced visuals, but if the developers of your old games sent you updated versions with precisely the same gameplay and performance potential for your machine--but prettier visuals--would you honestly deny that those versions offered a richer experience? Because I'd argue they certainly would, almost objectively... because again, we're talking about a visual medium here. All else equal, things that look better are usually better.

PredatorRules, no one here, self-annointed graphics whore or otherwise, argues that the only thing they look for in a game is fancy graphics.

This is not right.  Movies are a visual medium too but I see not advantage in better special effects in movies at all.  Take an all time classic like Citizen Kane.  There is no way the movie would be better had Orson Wells had the cameras of today to make the very same movie.  It would be worse, period. 

Another example - Star Wars.  The fist 3 are way, way better than the second 3.  And it makes no difference that the second 3 had decades more advance special effects, it didn't help the movies at all because its the story and actors that make a movie great, NOT THE SPECIAL EFFECTS!

Ah but perhaps you were arround when the first 3 started, which is also my case. But them new kids might think that the first 3 where crap, being more "graphicwise" because of the advancement in special effects. But as blasphemous as it sounds, a lot of people might think that way.

Start a poll on that.  I know for a fact that the majority of kids/people that were not around for the first 3 SW movies still think they are better than the second 3.

And I was not born yet when Citizen Kane of any of the other movies that would make my top 10 list, Casablanca, 3rd Man, Dr Strangelove, The graduate, etc. etc.  That is just ridicules!  You would have to have some pretty bad taste in everything to think all new stuff is better than all older stuff!

 We cling to our past, and I'm with you on the Star Wars movies, I like the old ones better, in fact I like older things better, (xcept women of course), but I don't know about the new Star Wars fans, and I don't know what you seem to know for a fact, but my little nephew likes the new ones better, hence the use of might and perhaps in my post. And I don't think he has a bad taste, he is just small, enjoys the newer special effects, and wasn't arround when the older Star Wars movies screened. He is just amazed with the story and sound effects of the newer movies, just as we were when the older Star Wars where out. ;)

But enough about Star Wars, keep on graphic wh*ring!

I'd like to point out that one of the primary symptoms of GW is that when you install a new game, you quickly rush to the graphic settings and max them out to see if your computer can run this, and it pains you to lower them 'till you find the most stable setting...and yes every time you see the settings not maxed out you crave newer hardware.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]The reasoning you guys are using is really silly.  Just becuase people have good computers does not mean they are graphics wh*res.  Maybe I have a different idea of what a graphics wh*re's deffinition is, and what it means to you.  Does simply enjoying good graphics mean you are a GW?  Arcadius

Ahh, but it is the first step...that is how you begin. You buy a game (or a game console for that matter) because it has nice graphics. You enjoy those graphics. More games arrive with better graphics. Your computer (or console) begins to have trouble with those newer games (or in the case of a console it just doesn't run them). You know you need to see and play with these newer graphical innovations. You buy the best card so that you can see those graphics. You start the game, go to options, choose graphics, max out them, play the game. Graphic Wh*re!  :lol:

That doesn't make sense at all.  The ability to max out games has nothing to do with being a graphics whore, which implies the determining factor for a person in buying and playing games is graphics.  Graphics wh*re also implies that said person does not play games of "lesser" graphics becuase of the reasoning, "the graphics suxxor...so does the game!".  Becuase I am able to comfortably buy fantastic computers and enjoy my hobby in all it's glory, has nothing to do with being a graphics wh*re. 

Of course graphics are important part of pc gaming, nobody is denying that.  But lets not water ourselves down, they are not more important the sum of all the parts that makes pc games great.  Story, gameplay, controls, music, sound effects, ect all play equal part in creating games.  It's not meerly a "visual medium", it's an INTERACTIVE medium, with many parts playing a role in the presentation.

Something tells me alot of you have no idea what a graphics wh*re is.  Just like sex...just becuase you enjoy lots of good sex doesn't make you a wh*re, it's when you sell yourself (in this case to graphics) is the determining factor in making you a wh*re.

But enough about Star Wars, keep on graphic wh*ring!

 

I'd like to point out that one of the primary symptoms of GW is that when you install a new game, you quickly rush to the graphic settings and max them out to see if your computer can run this, and it pains you to lower them 'till you find the most stable setting...and yes every time you see the settings not maxed out you crave newer hardware.

Arcadius

Don't give me that cling to our past crap!  I just listed a bunch of movies that came out way before I was born and I didn't see until I was in my late 20s!!  Citizen Kane is not my past at all.  If anything it's my present.  But most of the best all time movies were made in the past and that is largely because of graphics and special effects.  Nowadays they put 80% of the budget into special effects and throw a weak plot/story out their with a bunch of bad, good looking actors and expect it to be good and its not! 

Special effects will NEVER make up for a good story and quality acting!  The same is true for video games, graphics will never make up for lack or quality story and gameplay!

Of course graphics are important part of pc gaming, nobody is denying that.  But lets not water ourselves down, they are not more important the sum of all the parts that makes pc games great.  Story, gameplay, controls, music, sound effects, ect all play equal part in creating games.  It's not meerly a "visual medium", it's an INTERACTIVE medium, with many parts playing a role in the presentation. dnuggs40

No disagreement here. I'll buy that as another way to argue the perspective I've been advocating.

Something tells me alot of you have no idea what a graphics wh*re is.  Just like sex...just becuase you enjoy lots of good sex doesn't make you a wh*re, it's when you sell yourself (in this case to graphics) is the determining factor in making you a wh*re.dnuggs40

Wellllllllll, ok. I guess part of this debate has to be about what a graphics whore actually is. I happen to prize cool visuals, but I also happen to be living on a swelling mountain of grad student debt... so I don't buy new video hardware too frequently. For that reason, I'd been operating on the premise that a GW is little more than someone who hold graphics at a premium, and unabashedly loves pretty effects (that's me). Or, more simply, a GW is anyone who would have voted YES on this poll, and rejected the 'gameplay is everything' mantra.

I'll stand corrected on the definition if need be.

[QUOTE="Arcadius"]

But enough about Star Wars, keep on graphic wh*ring!

 

I'd like to point out that one of the primary symptoms of GW is that when you install a new game, you quickly rush to the graphic settings and max them out to see if your computer can run this, and it pains you to lower them 'till you find the most stable setting...and yes every time you see the settings not maxed out you crave newer hardware.

basersx

Don't give me that cling to our past crap!  I just listed a bunch of movies that came out way before I was born and I didn't see until I was in my late 20s!!  Citizen Kane is not my past at all.  If anything it's my present.  But most of the best all time movies were made in the past and that is largely because of graphics and special effects.  Nowadays they put 80% of the budget into special effects and throw a weak plot/story out their with a bunch of bad, good looking actors and expect it to be good and its not! 

Special effects will NEVER make up for a good story and quality acting!  The same is true for video games, graphics will never make up for lack or quality story and gameplay!

I tried to answer this point a few posts back... any thoughts?

You're oversimplifying my point. If you refer to a post of mine a few pages back, I explain this in more detail--in fact, I think movies, theater, and even illustrated literature are a great analogue for this discussion. I'm certainly not equating strength of visuals in gaming to special effects in film.

The "visual medium" point is simply a way to express that visual and non-visual content are absolutely linked in these art forms; Citizen Kane, for instance, was written explicitly for the screen. The screenplay, Orson would argue, is a pile of pages containing only a fraction of the intended work of art. Citizen Kane, unlike a novel he might have written with the same subject, was conceived as a visual experience. We, the audience, would watch Orson Welles' screenplay expressed through acting (also a visual art form), camera work, lighting, and various forms of production design. (You picked, by the way, a famously delicious example from a visual perspective--Citizen Kane is a landmark of cinematographic technology and artistry. Welles was a brilliant filmaker, not a novelist; he loved creating stunning visuals, and he wasn't afraid of technology). You're not going to find a film historian or critic who wouldn't argue that part of Citizen Kane's brilliance lies in Welles' prowess as a visual genius.

Then there's my career. I'm a production designer for theatre. I conceive and design scenery (and costumes too, a little) for plays and musicals. Sometimes, that means I want to have enourmous hydraulic rotating platforms installed. But I'd like to think I'm a mature enough designer to understand that sometimes, the very best space for a play to inhabit is little or nothing at all--maybe just a dirt floor, or a red chair in front of a white tile wall; maybe, the show just wants a bare stage. But by definition, the scenic designer is a visuals whore... whether we're talking about a giant fiber optic-laced pirate ship set, or a bare black floor set, I care deeply that my work enhances the show. It's my job.

In film, and theatre, and illustrated literature, and yes, in gaming, the total experience depends on wise use of both visual and non-visual elements. It's possible for the balance to be off in either direction. The Star Wars prequels are the easiest example--those movies invested so much not just in special effects technology, but in elaborately conceived environments and costumes--but they had weak stories and cardboard characters. And we see games released every week that look marvelous in screenshots, but just aren't fun.

No one is arguing that good visuals necessarily make a good product in any medium.

All I'm arguing is that these are mediums which take us places with our eyes. That's the filmakers job, and the game developers' job too. Whether we're watching a quiet conversation in a serious drama on screen, or if we're just arranging armies on a strategic map in an turn-based strategy game, the look affects how it feels. Good developers and designers use that power wisely, period.

lokstah

QFT. 

Thanks for getting the satire mixed in with my (and other Graphics Whores') posts. 

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]Of course graphics are important part of pc gaming, nobody is denying that. But lets not water ourselves down, they are not more important the sum of all the parts that makes pc games great. Story, gameplay, controls, music, sound effects, ect all play equal part in creating games. It's not meerly a "visual medium", it's an INTERACTIVE medium, with many parts playing a role in the presentation. lokstah

No disagreement here. I'll buy that as another way to argue the perspective I've been advocating.

Something tells me alot of you have no idea what a graphics wh*re is. Just like sex...just becuase you enjoy lots of good sex doesn't make you a wh*re, it's when you sell yourself (in this case to graphics) is the determining factor in making you a wh*re.dnuggs40

Wellllllllll, ok. I guess part of this debate has to be about what a graphics whore actually is. I happen to prize cool visuals, but I also happen to be living on a swelling mountain of grad student debt... so I don't buy new video hardware too frequently. For that reason, I'd been operating on the premise that a GW is little more than someone who hold graphics at a premium, and unabashedly loves pretty effects (that's me). Or, more simply, a GW is anyone who would have voted YES on this poll, and rejected the 'gameplay is everything' mantra.

I'll stand corrected on the definition if need be.

I embrace that definition. 

Thanks for getting the satire mixed in with my (and other Graphics Whores') posts. Jack_Summersby

Well, it's a great topic. One of those 'seperates the men from the fanboys' discussions. Whore on!

[QUOTE="Arcadius"]

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]The reasoning you guys are using is really silly.  Just becuase people have good computers does not mean they are graphics wh*res.  Maybe I have a different idea of what a graphics wh*re's deffinition is, and what it means to you.  Does simply enjoying good graphics mean you are a GW?  dnuggs40

Ahh, but it is the first step...that is how you begin. You buy a game (or a game console for that matter) because it has nice graphics. You enjoy those graphics. More games arrive with better graphics. Your computer (or console) begins to have trouble with those newer games (or in the case of a console it just doesn't run them). You know you need to see and play with these newer graphical innovations. You buy the best card so that you can see those graphics. You start the game, go to options, choose graphics, max out them, play the game. Graphic Wh*re!  :lol:

That doesn't make sense at all.  The ability to max out games has nothing to do with being a graphics whore, which implies the determining factor for a person in buying and playing games is graphics.  Graphics wh*re also implies that said person does not play games of "lesser" graphics becuase of the reasoning, "the graphics suxxor...so does the game!".  Becuase I am able to comfortably buy fantastic computers and enjoy my hobby in all it's glory, has nothing to do with being a graphics wh*re. 

Of course graphics are important part of pc gaming, nobody is denying that.  But lets not water ourselves down, they are not more important the sum of all the parts that makes pc games great.  Story, gameplay, controls, music, sound effects, ect all play equal part in creating games.  It's not meerly a "visual medium", it's an INTERACTIVE medium, with many parts playing a role in the presentation.

Something tells me alot of you have no idea what a graphics wh*re is.  Just like sex...just becuase you enjoy lots of good sex doesn't make you a wh*re, it's when you sell yourself (in this case to graphics) is the determining factor in making you a wh*re.

Hey I'm just messing arround man, its a joke, a way to pass time, no real argument here, I am a visual person, so graphics are important to me, but so is gameplay, story, sound etc, and just as you well put it, "...it's an INTERACTIVE medium, with many parts playing a role in the presentation", nothing is more true than that! I'm not buying a game just for the graphics, in fact even if I do, I'd like a game with a good story and average graphics more.

Cheers dude!

Now back to wh*ring!

Something tells me you are in your 30's or close, so don't tell me that when you were playing your ATARI 2600 (or any other Pre NES console) you didn't discuss with your buddies how great the graphics of the NES were?

[QUOTE="Arcadius"]

But enough about Star Wars, keep on graphic wh*ring!

 

I'd like to point out that one of the primary symptoms of GW is that when you install a new game, you quickly rush to the graphic settings and max them out to see if your computer can run this, and it pains you to lower them 'till you find the most stable setting...and yes every time you see the settings not maxed out you crave newer hardware.

basersx

Don't give me that cling to our past crap!  I just listed a bunch of movies that came out way before I was born and I didn't see until I was in my late 20s!!  Citizen Kane is not my past at all.  If anything it's my present.  But most of the best all time movies were made in the past and that is largely because of graphics and special effects.  Nowadays they put 80% of the budget into special effects and throw a weak plot/story out their with a bunch of bad, good looking actors and expect it to be good and its not! 

Special effects will NEVER make up for a good story and quality acting!  The same is true for video games, graphics will never make up for lack or quality story and gameplay!

hehe you misquoted me, but "Special effects will NEVER make up for a good story and quality acting!  The same is true for video games, graphics will never make up for lack or quality story and gameplay!" is your opinion, and I share it! (Back to graphic wh*ring) But out there our brothers and sisters Special effect wh*res beg to differ!

[QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="Arcadius"]

But enough about Star Wars, keep on graphic wh*ring!

 

I'd like to point out that one of the primary symptoms of GW is that when you install a new game, you quickly rush to the graphic settings and max them out to see if your computer can run this, and it pains you to lower them 'till you find the most stable setting...and yes every time you see the settings not maxed out you crave newer hardware.

Arcadius

Don't give me that cling to our past crap!  I just listed a bunch of movies that came out way before I was born and I didn't see until I was in my late 20s!!  Citizen Kane is not my past at all.  If anything it's my present.  But most of the best all time movies were made in the past and that is largely because of graphics and special effects.  Nowadays they put 80% of the budget into special effects and throw a weak plot/story out their with a bunch of bad, good looking actors and expect it to be good and its not! 

Special effects will NEVER make up for a good story and quality acting!  The same is true for video games, graphics will never make up for lack or quality story and gameplay!

hehe you misquoted me, but "Special effects will NEVER make up for a good story and quality acting!  The same is true for video games, graphics will never make up for lack or quality story and gameplay!" is your opinion, and I share it! (Back to graphic wh*ring) But out there our brothers and sisters Special effect wh*res beg to differ!

I made a poll in OT - http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25637646&msg_id=288283717#288283717

Nice man, I admire the lengths you go to prove your point, but as I say, I share your opinion man, my fave is Empire Strikes Back. And I like movies for the story and acting rather than the special effects. But for the sake of the topic and graphic wh*ring I could have given you the wrong idea. It's all fun and games man!

PS. I checked out your poll, and yes, the old trilogy is really smashing the new. :)

When I look for a game to buy, I always look at the gameplay first, then the graphics, e.g. I bought Gal civ 2, the graphics are rubbish, but the gameplay is very deep. I like a mixture though, If I buy a game like Gla civ 2, then my next would be something good lookin'.