Graphics Wh*res - VOTE OR DIE!

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][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?  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.

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?

Of course I know this is all in good fun, but if there was only one side of the debate present here it would be jsut a bunch of graphics wh*res giving each other high fives lol.  Gotta keep this thing interesting...else...how am I going to pass time at work?

"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?"

25 here, and ya, when I first saw Super Mario in action...it blew my freaking mind!

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. :)

 

Arcadius

The poll is proving that even most young people like the first 3 way more.  So special effects don't make a movie and that is the point.  When they make a movie they should try to write the great story, then get great actors, then do great directing.  Then as an after thought if they want to use special effects that's fine but that's all it should be, an after thought.

Same is true for games.  The game makers should try to make games with great stories, great voice actors, great game play and then as an after thought  say ok now that we have this great product lets also try to make it look really good.

What they should NOT do is say ok lets make the coolest looking movie or game possible and then go out and try to find a story and some actors to fit the graphics / special effects.  Unfortunately that is the way most big mainstream games and movies  now are made!

Content should always be a higher priority than visuals!

lmao, "Gotta keep this thing interesting...else...how am I going to pass time at work?" you too?! :lol: 

Regarding Mario, I made the move from Atari 2600 to NES, and the game that blew my mind was Mike Tyson's Punchout! I was 11 or 12 at the time. Nowadays I hate them consoles (not the players) for the more graphic intensive PC! (this last statement was made in graphic wh*re mode, **shrieks at the Graphic wh*re PC fanboy posibility**)

[QUOTE="Arcadius"]

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. :)

 

basersx

The poll is proving that even most young people like the first 3 way more.  So special effects don't make a movie and that is the point.  When they make a movie they should try to write the great story, then get great actors, then do great directing.  Then as an after thought if they want to use special effects that's fine but that's all it should be, an after thought.

Same is true for games.  The game makers should try to make games with great stories, great voice actors, great game play and then as an after thought  say ok now that we have this great product lets also try to make it look really good.

What they should NOT do is say ok lets make the coolest looking movie or game possible and then go out and try to find a story and some actors to fit the graphics / special effects.  Unfortunately that is the way most big mainstream games and movies  now are made!

Content should always be a higher priority than visuals!

Basersx, you keep avoiding me.  :(

lmao, "Gotta keep this thing interesting...else...how am I going to pass time at work?" you too?! :lol: 

Regarding Mario, I made the move from Atari 2600 to NES, and the game that blew my mind was Mike Tyson's Punchout! I was 11 or 12 at the time. Nowadays I hate them consoles (not the players) for the more graphic intensive PC!

Arcadius

lol

You know, I still play Mike Tyson's Punchout! on an emulator.  It's one of my all time favorite games.  Although I can't beat Mike anymore, I guess my reflexes are not what they used to be :( 

The poll is proving that even most young people like the first 3 way more. So special effects don't make a movie and that is the point. When they make a movie they should try to write the great story, then get great actors, then do great directing. Then as an after thought if they want to use special effects that's fine but that's all it should be, an after thought.

Same is true for games. The game makers should try to make games with great stories, great voice actors, great game play and then as an after thought say ok now that we have this great product lets also try to make it look really good.

What they should NOT do is say ok lets make the coolest looking movie or game possible and then go out and try to find a story and some actors to fit the graphics / special effects. Unfortunately that is the way most big mainstream games and movies now are made!

Content should always be a higher priority than visuals!basersx

Star Wars IV - VI special effects still look pretty good, and the special effects are one of, perhaps the most, important reason why that series was so popular to begin with.  It's ironic that you are using a series that founded the Lucas Studios Graphics Whores DREAM to prove that graphics are not supremely important.

[QUOTE="basersx"]The poll is proving that even most young people like the first 3 way more. So special effects don't make a movie and that is the point. When they make a movie they should try to write the great story, then get great actors, then do great directing. Then as an after thought if they want to use special effects that's fine but that's all it should be, an after thought.

Same is true for games. The game makers should try to make games with great stories, great voice actors, great game play and then as an after thought say ok now that we have this great product lets also try to make it look really good.

What they should NOT do is say ok lets make the coolest looking movie or game possible and then go out and try to find a story and some actors to fit the graphics / special effects. Unfortunately that is the way most big mainstream games and movies now are made!

Content should always be a higher priority than visuals!Jack_Summersby

Star Wars IV - VI special effects still look pretty good, and the special effects are one of, perhaps the most, important reason why that series was so popular to begin with.  It's ironic that you are using a series that founded the Lucas Studios Graphics Whores DREAM to prove that graphics are not supremely important.

Not only that--he's cited a number of favorite films in reference to my visual medium argument (Citizen Kane, The Third Man, and Casablanca in particular), often considered masterpieces of cinematic flair.

[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 can see your point here.. my step-brother (who is about half my age) enjoys the old NES games as much as I do.. he wasn't around at the time they came out and still enjoys them. Even while new games fronted nicer graphics he still played the old NES games... So, yes I have to agree, partly, here.

[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.

but half people have chosed graphics over gameplay - so lets say sucky control of the character, boring game all that worth lets say Crysis graphics?

[QUOTE="Arcadius"]

lmao, "Gotta keep this thing interesting...else...how am I going to pass time at work?" you too?! :lol:

Regarding Mario, I made the move from Atari 2600 to NES, and the game that blew my mind was Mike Tyson's Punchout! I was 11 or 12 at the time. Nowadays I hate them consoles (not the players) for the more graphic intensive PC!

dnuggs40

lol

You know, I still play Mike Tyson's Punchout! on an emulator. It's one of my all time favorite games. Although I can't beat Mike anymore, I guess my reflexes are not what they used to be :(

Hell man try to old Megamans.. even with the "save state" option its still hard as hell :/ 

Not only that--he's cited a number of favorite films in reference to my visual medium argument (Citizen Kane, The Third Man, and Casablanca in particular), often considered masterpieces of cinematic flair.

 

lokstah

[QUOTE="lokstah"]

Not only that--he's cited a number of favorite films in reference to my visual medium argument (Citizen Kane, The Third Man, and Casablanca in particular), often considered masterpieces of cinematic flair.

Ah true that! Although I have to say UHF still gets me to laugh my butt off.. Alkpaz

lmao !  :lol:

CONAN THE LIBRARIAN!

err you are refering to the Weird Al film right?

but half people have chosed graphics over gameplay - so lets say sucky control of the character, boring game all that worth lets say Crysis graphics?PredatorRules

Graphics over gameplay? I've never said that. The poll doesn't say that. Who's said that?

"I personally view pretty graphics as the gravy on my Thanksgiving Dinner turkey and mashed potatos. It isn't an absolute necessity to enjoy my dinner, and I'm not going to scoop my plate and go hungry if I don't have the gravy,..."

Damn fine fine posting man, you nailed it! Though for the sake of this thread I don't know if that makes you a graphic wh*re or not? ;)

[QUOTE="PredatorRules"]but half people have chosed graphics over gameplay - so lets say sucky control of the character, boring game all that worth lets say Crysis graphics?lokstah

Graphics over gameplay? I've never said that. The poll doesn't say that. Who's said that?

Necessary but insufficient is a difficult subject to teach.  There's more going on here than this, but in many ways, that's the core concept.

Personally, I think a good definition of a graphics whore is as follows:

If you believe a game can have really bad/ugly graphics and still be a great game if things like gameplay, characters and storyline make up for it, then you are not a graphics whore. On the other hand if you think that a game MUST have great graphics in order to be a great game then you are probably a graphics wh.ore.nocoolnamejim

Well, I don't think that's a valid definition myself... for two reasons.

First off, I don't think many (if any) gamers actually fit that bill. We all enjoy games, old and new, that don't sport the finest visuals.

Secondly, I don't think the elements parse out the way you're suggesting they do. Why do we keep discussing graphics and gameplay as though they exist independently? They're as linked as camerawork is to a film script. A great movie defies any attempt to divide them--you enjoy the visuals as a means of appreciating the script, and vice-versa. There are great games which sport less-sexy graphics than others, but if you're loving the game and you consider it great, by definition you find the graphics acceptable.

Example: folks are always citing UFO:XCOM as a legendary game with weak visuals. Weak compared to what? Who's to say that a version of XCOM with even crappier graphics wouldn't have been less appreciated? I'd argue that we can't say. We can't be sure XCOM would be a legend if the graphics hadn't been as good as they were. What we do know is that those visuals worked in a good enough balance with XCOM's gameplay, and that's why it's a great game.

And that's the bottom line. A gaming experience balances co-dependent elements that work together. It's goofy to keep suggesting that there's some sort of natural division between a game's visual and non-visual features.

"I personally view pretty graphics as the gravy on my Thanksgiving Dinner turkey and mashed potatos. It isn't an absolute necessity to enjoy my dinner, and I'm not going to scoop my plate and go hungry if I don't have the gravy,..."

Damn fine fine posting man, you nailed it! Though for the sake of this thread I don't know if that makes you a graphic wh*re or not? ;)

Arcadius

[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.

I'm not denying that graphics are gret. Beleive me, I would happily give my left testicle for the resurection of the Tribes series, but its not going to happen. And there is no game with modern day graphics that give me the fun of flying around with a jetpack fragging people. And Gunbound is STILL the best Worms game to date (and yes, your right, I do like the visual presentation of GB and MS).

I guess what differentiates me from most people is I personally like cartoony graphics more than photorealistic ones. I think Crysis is meh, but WoW, TF2, and Windwaker are probably the best looking games of all time in my opinion. 

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Personally, I think a good definition of a graphics whore is as follows:

If you believe a game can have really bad/ugly graphics and still be a great game if things like gameplay, characters and storyline make up for it, then you are not a graphics whore. On the other hand if you think that a game MUST have great graphics in order to be a great game then you are probably a graphics wh.ore.lokstah

Well, I don't think that's a valid definition myself... for two reasons.

First off, I don't think many (if any) gamers actually fit that bill. We all enjoy games, old and new, that don't sport the finest visuals.

Secondly, I don't think the elements parse out the way you're suggesting they do. Why do we keep discussing graphics and gameplay as though they exist independently? They're as linked as camerawork is to a film script. A great movie defies any attempt to divide them--you enjoy the visuals as a means of appreciating the script, and vice-versa. There are great games which sport less-sexy graphics than others, but if you're loving the game and you consider it great, by definition you find the graphics acceptable.

Example: folks are always citing UFO:XCOM as a legendary game with weak visuals. Weak compared to what? Who's to say that a version of XCOM with even crappier graphics wouldn't have been less appreciated? I'd argue that we can't say. We can't be sure XCOM would be a legend if the graphics hadn't been as good as they were. What we do know is that those visuals worked in a good enough balance with XCOM's gameplay, and that's why it's a great game.

And that's the bottom line. A gaming experience balances co-dependent elements that work together. It's goofy to keep suggesting that there's some sort of natural division between a game's visual and non-visual features.

Pay a visit to System Wars. There are plenty of people that fit that bill. 

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

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. :)

 

lokstah

The poll is proving that even most young people like the first 3 way more.  So special effects don't make a movie and that is the point.  When they make a movie they should try to write the great story, then get great actors, then do great directing.  Then as an after thought if they want to use special effects that's fine but that's all it should be, an after thought.

Same is true for games.  The game makers should try to make games with great stories, great voice actors, great game play and then as an after thought  say ok now that we have this great product lets also try to make it look really good.

What they should NOT do is say ok lets make the coolest looking movie or game possible and then go out and try to find a story and some actors to fit the graphics / special effects.  Unfortunately that is the way most big mainstream games and movies  now are made!

Content should always be a higher priority than visuals!

Basersx, you keep avoiding me.  :(

I guess so, what did you say?  I'm pretty busy today and have really only paid attention to the one dudes posts on here.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Personally, I think a good definition of a graphics whore is as follows:

If you believe a game can have really bad/ugly graphics and still be a great game if things like gameplay, characters and storyline make up for it, then you are not a graphics whore. On the other hand if you think that a game MUST have great graphics in order to be a great game then you are probably a graphics wh.ore.lokstah

Well, I don't think that's a valid definition myself... for two reasons.

First off, I don't think many (if any) gamers actually fit that bill. We all enjoy games, old and new, that don't sport the finest visuals.

Secondly, I don't think the elements parse out the way you're suggesting they do. Why do we keep discussing graphics and gameplay as though they exist independently? They're as linked as camerawork is to a film script. A great movie defies any attempt to divide them--you enjoy the visuals as a means of appreciating the script, and vice-versa. There are great games which sport less-sexy graphics than others, but if you're loving the game and you consider it great, by definition you find the graphics acceptable.

Example: folks are always citing UFO:XCOM as a legendary game with weak visuals. Weak compared to what? Who's to say that a version of XCOM with even crappier graphics wouldn't have been less appreciated? I'd argue that we can't say. We can't be sure XCOM would be a legend if the graphics hadn't been as good as they were. What we do know is that those visuals worked in a good enough balance with XCOM's gameplay, and that's why it's a great game.

And that's the bottom line. A gaming experience balances co-dependent elements that work together. It's goofy to keep suggesting that there's some sort of natural division between a game's visual and non-visual features.

[QUOTE="Alkpaz"][QUOTE="lokstah"]

Not only that--he's cited a number of favorite films in reference to my visual medium argument (Citizen Kane, The Third Man, and Casablanca in particular), often considered masterpieces of cinematic flair.

Ah true that! Although I have to say UHF still gets me to laugh my butt off.. Arcadius

lmao ! :lol:

CONAN THE LIBRARIAN!

err you are refering to the Weird Al film right?

Yes, indeed I am :) 

I guess what differentiates me from most people is I personally like cartoony graphics more than photorealistic ones. I think Crysis is meh, but WoW, TF2, and Windwaker are probably the best looking games of all time in my opinion. bloodychimp

I'm not sure where that sensibility is coming from. There are many ways to define great graphics, or strong visuals--and they're always bound to be subjective criteria. Who said anything about realism? Sure, there's something exciting about graphics technologies which aim for photorealism--and many gamers today prefer that approach--but who said Grim Fandango wasn't an achievment in graphics? Eye candy comes in many forms. If cartoony graphics help you enjoy you gaming experience more, well, that's another example of my point at work.

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="basersx"]The poll is proving that even most young people like the first 3 way more. So special effects don't make a movie and that is the point. When they make a movie they should try to write the great story, then get great actors, then do great directing. Then as an after thought if they want to use special effects that's fine but that's all it should be, an after thought.

Same is true for games. The game makers should try to make games with great stories, great voice actors, great game play and then as an after thought say ok now that we have this great product lets also try to make it look really good.

What they should NOT do is say ok lets make the coolest looking movie or game possible and then go out and try to find a story and some actors to fit the graphics / special effects. Unfortunately that is the way most big mainstream games and movies now are made!

Content should always be a higher priority than visuals!lokstah

Star Wars IV - VI special effects still look pretty good, and the special effects are one of, perhaps the most, important reason why that series was so popular to begin with.  It's ironic that you are using a series that founded the Lucas Studios Graphics Whores DREAM to prove that graphics are not supremely important.

Not only that--he's cited a number of favorite films in reference to my visual medium argument (Citizen Kane, The Third Man, and Casablanca in particular), often considered masterpieces of cinematic flair.

Are you that dense that you don't see my point from my examples?  Or are you just trying to be a pain and argue for the sake of arguing?  There is nothing wrong with making a game or movie look really good, as long as it's the least import part of the whole.  All the movies I listed fall into that category.  The last 3 SW movies do not.  They were made for Visuals first and story second (except maybe the last one).  Lucas himself has admitted as much, case in point that Jar Jar clown.  He was basically in there to show off the animated graphics and add lame comic relief.

And if movies like Citizen Kane are not good enough for you then how about "In the Company of Men".  A fantastic movie made for about 100k or something.  There only had 1 camera move in the whole movie.  Except for it was shot with entirely fixed camera scenes!

[QUOTE="Arcadius"]

"I personally view pretty graphics as the gravy on my Thanksgiving Dinner turkey and mashed potatos. It isn't an absolute necessity to enjoy my dinner, and I'm not going to scoop my plate and go hungry if I don't have the gravy,..."

Damn fine fine posting man, you nailed it! Though for the sake of this thread I don't know if that makes you a graphic wh*re or not? ;)

nocoolnamejim

hehe, I don't think anyone here really is a Graphic Wh.ore in a strict sense, most of us are just goofing arround. In fact I'm just having problems trying to find a game with really really cool graphics and sucky story gamplay...

Aha! now 1 game comes to mind: Proyect IGI, it had great graphics but a poor story imho. I bought it because of the graphics but I quit playing because I got bored and frustrated with the story and gameplay. (It was a game with some "real life physics" since bullets ran through wood and other soft materials in the game.)

[I agree with you to a point. It is certainly true that good graphics influence gameplay by making a game more enjoyable. On the other hand, I think it is possible for a game to have poor graphics and still have good gameplay, just like it is possible for a game to have great graphics but still be very boring to play. Yes the two influence each other, but I do not think that they are one and the same. In other words, I disagree with your assertion that the two elements are co-dependent. I think that one can be helpful towards the other, but it is possible to have one without having both. nocoolnamejim

It's possible to make a pizza without sauce, or cheese; it's possible to build a car without seats or tires. It's possible to have a game without graphics--we had them for years (Zork, anyone?), but that's a different media form. It's also possible to enjoy a film with your eyes closed, or to stage a play without lifting the curtain. But those are unusual experiences which venture into other forms of media (is that still a play, or is it some form of live radio show?). The contemporary video game experience is inherently visual. We play games with an expectation to see what we're doing. Even the simplest contemporary game has an interface, and the way that interface operates and looks affects how the game feels.

But we're not talking about Zork. We're talking about games designed, like I've asserted, much how movies are conceived: the visuals are a means of expressing content. It's not possible to divide those features out in a contemporary gaming experience. They're designed, conceived, and executed in support of one another.

hehe, I don't think anyone here really is a Graphic Wh.ore in a strict sense, most of us are just goofing arround. In fact I'm just having problems trying to find a game with really really cool graphics and sucky story gamplay... Arcadius

Allow me to help: Prey.  Also, Call of Duty 2. 

A Simple Theory

 Graphics And Gameplay Are

"Two Sides Of The Same Coin"

you may say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one

* visualize impeachment *

lokstah

Lokstah, have you though about what you will change your sig to in Nov. 2008? I guess you could leave it as is if Hillary wins. :P

(Or Romney) (or really almost any of the lousy candidates on either side) (BASTARDS!!!)

[QUOTE="Arcadius"]hehe, I don't think anyone here really is a Graphic Wh.ore in a strict sense, most of us are just goofing arround. In fact I'm just having problems trying to find a game with really really cool graphics and sucky story gamplay... Jack_Summersby

Allow me to help: Prey. Also, Call of Duty 2.

Hey, I liked Prey! CoD2 was good but not "awesome".

Different strokes for different folks :) 

Are you that dense that you don't see my point from my examples?  Or are you just trying to be a pain and argue for the sake of arguing?  There is nothing wrong with making a game or movie look really good, as long as it's the least import part of the whole.  All the movies I listed fall into that category.  The last 3 SW movies do not.  They were made for Visuals first and story second (except maybe the last one).  Lucas himself has admitted as much, case in point that Jar Jar clown.  He was basically in there to show off the animated graphics and add lame comic relief.

And if movies like Citizen Kane are not good enough for you then how about "In the Company of Men".  A fantastic movie made for about 100k or something.  There only had 1 camera move in the whole movie.  Except for it was shot with entirely fixed camera scenes!

basersx

Again, I'm away for a few hours... but I think I've addressed this several times in long, earlier posts. I've poked fun at your selections (visually smashing films) but have indicated that even on small, intitmate scales, games and movies alike offer content which is indivisable from their visual design. Scroll back a page or three if you have the chance--I'll be back later. Peace

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

[QUOTE="Arcadius"]hehe, I don't think anyone here really is a Graphic Wh.ore in a strict sense, most of us are just goofing arround. In fact I'm just having problems trying to find a game with really really cool graphics and sucky story gamplay... Alkpaz

Allow me to help: Prey. Also, Call of Duty 2.

Hey, I liked Prey! CoD2 was good but not "awesome".

Different strokes for different folks :) 

Same here! Though I liked Call of Duty 2 a bit more than Prey.

Still they are nothing compared to Project IGI, it had great graphics, and the premise of bullets running through objects was also atractive, but being a secret agent where you had to infiltrate enemy bases by wiping all enemies out sucked...thats another thing! I think Project IGI or (I'm Going In) was released arround 2000, when graphics were taking a huge leap ahead, so it was natural that it should attract graphic oriented people.

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

[QUOTE="Arcadius"]hehe, I don't think anyone here really is a Graphic Wh.ore in a strict sense, most of us are just goofing arround. In fact I'm just having problems trying to find a game with really really cool graphics and sucky story gamplay... Alkpaz

Allow me to help: Prey. Also, Call of Duty 2.

so your saying WW2 is a bad story? 

[QUOTE="lokstah"]

you may say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one

* visualize impeachment *

Jack_Summersby

Lokstah, have you though about what you will change your sig to in Nov. 2008? I guess you could leave it as is if Hillary wins. :P

(Or Romney) (or really almost any of the lousy candidates on either side) (BASTARDS!!!)

Only time will tell, Jack... only time. Let's just say I'm as cynical as the next guy these days... bile runs through my heart.

Are you that dense that you don't see my point from my examples?  Or are you just trying to be a pain and argue for the sake of arguing?  There is nothing wrong with making a game or movie look really good, as long as it's the least import part of the whole.  All the movies I listed fall into that category.  The last 3 SW movies do not.  They were made for Visuals first and story second (except maybe the last one).  Lucas himself has admitted as much, case in point that Jar Jar clown.  He was basically in there to show off the animated graphics and add lame comic relief.

And if movies like Citizen Kane are not good enough for you then how about "In the Company of Men".  A fantastic movie made for about 100k or something.  There only had 1 camera move in the whole movie.  Except for it was shot with entirely fixed camera scenes!

basersx

Ok Basersx--I'm back.

First off, I don't think I or anyone else disagrees with what your basic premise seems to be: good visuals alone are not enough to produce an excellent, complete video game, movie, or piece of theatre. I have agreed again and again in numerous posts that we're all familiar with games and movies that are exceptional without sporting innovative, slick, expensive, or elaborate visuals. I poked fun at Citizen Kane and the Third Man because they're such visually striking examples, but I have no trouble at all appreciating that great work is done in visual mediums without making gigantic visual statements.

I also discussed, in a long post, my career, and the perspective it gives me on this subject. I'm a production designer for theatre--I design scenery mostly (I dabble in costume design as well). In theatre terms, a designer is, by definition, a visuals whore. I'm entirely concerned with how the visuals of the piece affect the overall effect of the show. As much as I love dreaming up crazy, massive worlds, I recognize that the right look for a piece is often something very quiet... or very small... or almost nothing at all. I've designed many shows where someone has paid me to leave the theatre black, and put a chair in the middle of the stage. Sometimes, of course, the budget demands that--but even on Broadway, directors and designers will sometimes settle on unassuming, simple designs.

When I'm dreaming up a set, or when a movie director and his designers are discussing the look of their movie, or when a video game development team is planning out their project, the same priorities are on the table: what's the very best formula for achieving the experience we want?

My argument, is that in any of those settings, the final effect isn't achieved by building a mound of mashed potatoes and then deciding how much gravy awesomeness to dump on top. That's like suggesting a film is half done when the script is written. No--the whole process of getting the information on the script pages into the heads of viewers revolves around putting it into visual form. Acting is a visual art. Cinematography is a visual art. Games are the same way: even the simplest-looking contemporary game has to be translated from game ideas into game experience through visuals. The interface, color and font choices; they all affect how the game feels.

I'm going to sum up by quoting myself from an earlier post, because I can only think of so many ways to write the same points again and again (minor emphasis added):

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 transport us to 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

I'll take gameplay over graphics, but both is obviously best.

I'm actually playing Ultima 7 at the moment. Compared to anything made in the last 10 years it's ugly as hell but still a lot of fun. Brings back fond memories of many late nights 15 yrs ago.

Holy crap, and again you bastards all take some retarded discussion this far :p

It's pretty obvious to me that people perceive liking graphics 'this much' is being a graphic whore, and other people perceive it as being that much, and you're not arguing anything of substance.. Just someone else's perception.. Worse so, arguing their semantics, the word they use personally for a certain amount of something, where you may have a different cut-off point for the term 'graphic whore'. The point is you still value graphics a certain amount, and others more, and some people spend a certain amount of money on it, or value it a certain amount.. Who cares what they NAME that certain amount of cash usage and the amount of value you put in the graphics : p

A video game by any other name would still be as fun! Semantics is nothing, people 'name' things certain things to organize a thing or idea within their own minds, and their name for it shouldn't mean anything to you personally, at least not in this sort of context.. You all are argument whores.. You love to argue stupid things, at least or exactly 1.743 hours a day!

And I am not! And you're wrong, and you all suck 

lol idc if the game runs at 10 fps, aslong as it looks beutifullMrNib

i play RS:Vegas with 10-20 fps max and never even got in mind disabling some options to get a smoother frame rate and im perfectly fine with it...

[QUOTE="mimic-Denmark"]Of course graphics matter, but not over gameplay. But i wouldn't care if a new game today was realeased with 2004 graphics, aka doom3, far cry, etc. Those graphics will properly always look good, because they have a lot of detail and realisc lightning.Jack_Summersby

Jesus, shut up. Stop saying you are a graphics whore, it basically means you are shallow as hell. Only if you depend solely on graphics, which is just absurd. Gameplay always is a top prioriety.

All that you say just makes you sound like an utter and complete douche. JUST SHUT UP!

I bet you will want to re-edit this post five years from now. Maybe sooner. I think you're in the closet, graphics whore.

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

[QUOTE="Arcadius"]hehe, I don't think anyone here really is a Graphic Wh.ore in a strict sense, most of us are just goofing arround. In fact I'm just having problems trying to find a game with really really cool graphics and sucky story gamplay... Alkpaz

Allow me to help: Prey. Also, Call of Duty 2.

Hey, I liked Prey! CoD2 was good but not "awesome".

Different strokes for different folks :)

Agreed. :) 

Havent read in this thread since i last replied in it. But jack, you said that i should rethink what i wrote about saying that graphics from games from 2004, like doom3 and so on would look ugly at a time. How so? Because this may sound stupid, but a wall is a wall, and if you look at a wall in a game like fear, doom 3, even riddick for the pc, the walls look like they should, how in earth can you make those walls look better because they have stuff like bumpmapping on em that make em look real. It would just be different graphics in new games , if you look at a wall in a game like duke nukem 3d, then you can see that it needs some improving :) Therefor i think graphics are at a point where they dont need to make that a first priority for a new game, just improve on small things and make the gameplay something special, or use the graphics to immerse a player into its gameworld, not just make graphics so you can test out your new expensive computer.mimic-Denmark

You're not totally wrong, I just don't think we're there yet.  But soon!!!  (My graphics whorish self can't freakin wait!!!)

Holy crap, and again you bastards all take some retarded discussion this far :p

You all are argument whores.. You love to argue stupid things, at least or exactly 1.743 hours a day!Dracunos

I simply can't argue with that. 

Clearly, we've got some serious unresolved issues. Something is missing from my life.lokstah

LOL

I use these boards as a great distraction from studying all day.  Plus, sometimes I learn from the debates.  But probably something is missing from my life, as well ;-)