Graphics Wh*res - VOTE OR DIE!

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

[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.PaverPopPC

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.

I can't understand this post. I think you are calling me a shallow douche.

I will take that as a compliment. Thank you.

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 

Dracunos

Chill out dude, we're all having fun here only!

BTW according to your semantics, I am an Argue wh*re, for I be lawyer, and I be arguing for a living! :lol: So I am a Graphic and Argue wh*re!

[QUOTE="Dracunos"]

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

Arcadius

[QUOTE="PaverPopPC"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

[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.

I can't understand this post. I think you are calling me a shallow douche.

I will take that as a compliment. Thank you.

:lol:

Quite the colorful crowd this thread has attracted!

I only play two types of shooters:

(1) Witgh awesome, absolutely jaw dropping graphics. Doom 3 is a good example (at the time of its realease.)

(2) lots of monsters and endless shooting sessions.

Graphics just get old way quicker, though. 

Jack is proud of his monstrosity of a thread. Hey! Let's all get it locked!Dracunos

Why lock it?

It's fun. If you don't enjoy it, move along, Censurer!!!

EDIT: Now it's no longer an ancient bad word :P 

[QUOTE="Dracunos"]Jack is proud of his monstrosity of a thread. Hey! Let's all get it locked!Jack_Summersby

Why lock it?

It's fun. If you don't enjoy it, move along, Censorer!!!

I say lock it! this 'censorer' word is a bad word in a certain ancient form of latin! Lockitlockitlockit!! 

LOL dracunos is HATING .

Depends on how you define graphics. Since it's mostly about tech then I truly think that doesn't matter.

When D3 came out it was high tech, but I thought it was ugly as sin. In contrast I recently played PlaneScape Torment and it looked really dated, but I still thought it was beautiful. Or take a more modern game, Katamari Damacy...it's extermely low tech but its amazing cubic style is just mindblowing.

 I say Gameplay over Graphics and Beauty over Technology.

Jack, explain to me that you are such a graphics **** But you give games like Half Life 2 and Oblivion scores less than 6?

If you are what you say you are, then if a games graphics are orgasmic, shouldn't that be enough?

[QUOTE="SuperBeast"]X-Com UFO Defense/Enemy Unknown is STILL the best game ever made..... Nuff said. Jack_Summersby

No doubt there are classics that have bad graphics (e.g. Deus Ex 1), but for new games, graphics are super DUPER important.

Plus, many old games don't hold up now that their graphics have failed.  I've tried playing some "classics" and I get bored.

But as I said, I'm a Graphics Whore, and proud of it.

*waves graphics whores flag* (which is a super high res pick of master chief being obliterated by Jack Carver) 

for new games, graphics are, indeed, important.

Of course I'm a graphics whore, but it's not just purely about realism, it's about effectively employing graphics to IMMERSE the gamer into the game. Realistic graphics can do that, but other things like no glitches, decently made polygon meshes, and other things such as effective use of shaders really help. Yes, I have a fascination for nice superrealistic graphics and such but it needs to run smoothly and nicely as well. But either way, graphics are kinda worthless if the game sucks.

As far as I'm concerned, a game needs to be well rounded in all areas. Everything must come together to create an immersive experience that's fun and engaging.

I can still go back and play Half Life because of it's great gameplay and fun, immersive experience that it still is.  That and it's got alot of nostalgia tied to it for many of us (even though I played it for the first time in 2005).  As I previously said, good graphics are worthless if the gameplay sucks.  I'm not just a graphics whore, I'm an everything whore.  It ALL needs to be good.

Fact: The best selling games of all time have crappy graphics even during their release. SIMS & World of Warcraft.

Fact: The best selling games on the consoles have crappy graphics. See PS2, XBOX, Wii & DS games. Pokemon anyone?

Fact: The best selling sport games have crappy graphics. Remember the cardboard cutout looking fans in all EA sports games?

Some of the best RPGs have mediocre graphics but are still considered classics and are still being played today like the Infinity Engine games and the various Civ/tycoon/Sim games. People even play WC3 and SC still. CS is still popular.

You can probably count the number of people playing Fear, Doom and other high end graphic games. Even games like Lost Planet and Gears of War are practically dead once the game has been beaten once.

Ill take a fun 2d game over any graphical marvel any day of the week. If it has good gameplay, the graphics are secondary not to say that they arent appreciated, but they should not be emphasized. That is the root of all the crappy games we have today. Too much graphics, not enough thinking.

"Fact: The best selling games of all time have crappy graphics even during their release. SIMS & World of Warcraft."

The sims was did not have crappy graphics when it was released.  WoW wasn't the prettiest granted...but it has awesome artistic flair and it is a MMO, which is a bit different.

"Fact: The best selling games on the consoles have crappy graphics. See PS2, XBOX, Wii & DS games. Pokemon anyone?"

Thats the funniest thing I have heard yet in theis thread...did you even take a look at the best selling games of all time list? 

"Fact: The best selling sport games have crappy graphics. Remember the cardboard cutout looking fans in all EA sports games?"

WTF?!?!  Pretty much every single sports game since the 90's has had a MAJOR selling point of having "the next level of graphics".  Every Madden games has looked great, every NBA game as well.  And when I stick Fight Night Round 3 into my XBOX 360...I get blown away. 

lol....where did you come up with these "Facts"?

"Fact: The best selling games of all time have crappy graphics even during their release. SIMS & World of Warcraft."

The sims was did not have crappy graphics when it was released. WoW wasn't the prettiest granted...but it has awesome artistic flair and it is a MMO, which is a bit different.

"Fact: The best selling games on the consoles have crappy graphics. See PS2, XBOX, Wii & DS games. Pokemon anyone?"

Thats the funniest thing I have heard yet in theis thread...did you even take a look at the best selling games of all time list?

"Fact: The best selling sport games have crappy graphics. Remember the cardboard cutout looking fans in all EA sports games?"

WTF?!?! Pretty much every single sports game since the 90's has had a MAJOR selling point of having "the next level of graphics". Every Madden games has looked great, every NBA game as well. And when I stick Fight Night Round 3 into my XBOX 360...I get blown away.

lol....where did you come up with these "Facts"?

dnuggs40

The sims and the sims 2, when released, didn't have graphics as a selling point in the slightest. Nor did WoW, only WoW had so many fanboys that they all 'decided' that their crappy graphic game was actually not crappy graphics, but it was 'artistic flair'. Obviously the graphics were made crappily, because Blizzard had a goal of getting every single person they could play this game.. They wanted it accessable to even non-PC gamer type people. The graphics.. are crappy.. Deal with it :p Doesn't mean it looks hideous or anything.

I think I'm gonna get like 20 friends to vote non-graphics whore, just to ruin the thread! LOCKITLOCKIT LOOOOCKIT

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"Fact: The best selling games of all time have crappy graphics even during their release. SIMS & World of Warcraft."

The sims was did not have crappy graphics when it was released. WoW wasn't the prettiest granted...but it has awesome artistic flair and it is a MMO, which is a bit different.

"Fact: The best selling games on the consoles have crappy graphics. See PS2, XBOX, Wii & DS games. Pokemon anyone?"

Thats the funniest thing I have heard yet in theis thread...did you even take a look at the best selling games of all time list?

"Fact: The best selling sport games have crappy graphics. Remember the cardboard cutout looking fans in all EA sports games?"

WTF?!?! Pretty much every single sports game since the 90's has had a MAJOR selling point of having "the next level of graphics". Every Madden games has looked great, every NBA game as well. And when I stick Fight Night Round 3 into my XBOX 360...I get blown away.

lol....where did you come up with these "Facts"?

Dracunos

The sims and the sims 2, when released, didn't have graphics as a selling point in the slightest. Nor did WoW, only WoW had so many fanboys that they all 'decided' that their crappy graphic game was actually not crappy graphics, but it was 'artistic flair'. Obviously the graphics were made crappily, because Blizzard had a goal of getting every single person they could play this game.. They wanted it accessable to even non-PC gamer type people. The graphics.. are crappy.. Deal with it :p Doesn't mean it looks hideous or anything.

I think I'm gonna get like 20 friends to vote non-graphics whore, just to ruin the thread! LOCKITLOCKIT LOOOOCKIT

Did I say they graphics were the selling point? NO! I said the graphics were not CRAPPY when they were released. Reading comprehension is your friend ;)

[QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"Fact: The best selling games of all time have crappy graphics even during their release. SIMS & World of Warcraft."

The sims was did not have crappy graphics when it was released. WoW wasn't the prettiest granted...but it has awesome artistic flair and it is a MMO, which is a bit different.

"Fact: The best selling games on the consoles have crappy graphics. See PS2, XBOX, Wii & DS games. Pokemon anyone?"

Thats the funniest thing I have heard yet in theis thread...did you even take a look at the best selling games of all time list?

"Fact: The best selling sport games have crappy graphics. Remember the cardboard cutout looking fans in all EA sports games?"

WTF?!?! Pretty much every single sports game since the 90's has had a MAJOR selling point of having "the next level of graphics". Every Madden games has looked great, every NBA game as well. And when I stick Fight Night Round 3 into my XBOX 360...I get blown away.

lol....where did you come up with these "Facts"?

dnuggs40

The sims and the sims 2, when released, didn't have graphics as a selling point in the slightest. Nor did WoW, only WoW had so many fanboys that they all 'decided' that their crappy graphic game was actually not crappy graphics, but it was 'artistic flair'. Obviously the graphics were made crappily, because Blizzard had a goal of getting every single person they could play this game.. They wanted it accessable to even non-PC gamer type people. The graphics.. are crappy.. Deal with it :p Doesn't mean it looks hideous or anything.

I think I'm gonna get like 20 friends to vote non-graphics whore, just to ruin the thread! LOCKITLOCKIT LOOOOCKIT

Did I say they graphics were the selling point? NO! I said the graphics were not CRAPPY when they were released. Reading comprehension is your friend ;)

I just thought you'd try to argue an actual argument corresponding to the thread, and not just a random statement that you say in such a way to pretend you're saying something intelligent. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Most of this thread's argument was based on the amount of money spent on attaining such 'graphics', therefore being a whore, because you're willing to spend whatever money for it. You can't say 'the graphics were not crappy' as though you're speaking a fact. I can reasonably (or at least more reasonably) say that it wasn't a selling point.

Definately not a graphics whore. If a game is running anything less than 50fps I'll set the graphics as low as it takes to get over 50fps. I can't stand choppy framerates.  I'm only now just considering upgrading my PC because I get bad framerates with everything set to low on newer games like stalker and C&C, and money is no issue regarding upgrades.

It's all about priorities. I play CS 1.6 over CS:S despite owning both, because I prefer CS 1.6 for whatever reason. I just went through fallout 2 recently, playing a game path I'd previously not bothered with (played a dumb character!).  The graphics in that game are atrocious.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"Fact: The best selling games of all time have crappy graphics even during their release. SIMS & World of Warcraft."

The sims was did not have crappy graphics when it was released. WoW wasn't the prettiest granted...but it has awesome artistic flair and it is a MMO, which is a bit different.

"Fact: The best selling games on the consoles have crappy graphics. See PS2, XBOX, Wii & DS games. Pokemon anyone?"

Thats the funniest thing I have heard yet in theis thread...did you even take a look at the best selling games of all time list?

"Fact: The best selling sport games have crappy graphics. Remember the cardboard cutout looking fans in all EA sports games?"

WTF?!?! Pretty much every single sports game since the 90's has had a MAJOR selling point of having "the next level of graphics". Every Madden games has looked great, every NBA game as well. And when I stick Fight Night Round 3 into my XBOX 360...I get blown away.

lol....where did you come up with these "Facts"?

Dracunos

The sims and the sims 2, when released, didn't have graphics as a selling point in the slightest. Nor did WoW, only WoW had so many fanboys that they all 'decided' that their crappy graphic game was actually not crappy graphics, but it was 'artistic flair'. Obviously the graphics were made crappily, because Blizzard had a goal of getting every single person they could play this game.. They wanted it accessable to even non-PC gamer type people. The graphics.. are crappy.. Deal with it :p Doesn't mean it looks hideous or anything.

I think I'm gonna get like 20 friends to vote non-graphics whore, just to ruin the thread! LOCKITLOCKIT LOOOOCKIT

Did I say they graphics were the selling point? NO! I said the graphics were not CRAPPY when they were released. Reading comprehension is your friend ;)

I just thought you'd try to argue an actual argument corresponding to the thread, and not just a random statement that you say in such a way to pretend you're saying something intelligent. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Most of this thread's argument was based on the amount of money spent on attaining such 'graphics', therefore being a whore, because you're willing to spend whatever money for it. You can't say 'the graphics were not crappy' as though you're speaking a fact. I can reasonably (or at least more reasonably) say that it wasn't a selling point.

Yes...kinda like your "just deal with it logic" huh?  Again...the graphics were anything but crappy when they were released...and you are wrong.

"You can't say 'the graphics were not crappy' as though you're speaking a fact."

Of course I can, all one must do is compare the games against other titles during it's release year.  If the game holds up well against it's peers...it's not crappy ;)

"I can reasonably (or at least more reasonably) say that it wasn't a selling point. "

No...you can't.  Unless you work in either of those companies marketing department, please don't tell us what the "selling" point for those games are.  I am sure that varies from person to person.

"Selling point" varies from person to person.  If me and you both went car shopping and looked at the same car, the selling point for me might be the 30mpg highway, while for you it might be the nice leather interior and sun roof.  "Selling point" is subjective, graphics are not.  Graphics are technical by nature, and CAN be measured.

See...isn't logic fun?

[QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

"Fact: The best selling games of all time have crappy graphics even during their release. SIMS & World of Warcraft."

The sims was did not have crappy graphics when it was released. WoW wasn't the prettiest granted...but it has awesome artistic flair and it is a MMO, which is a bit different.

"Fact: The best selling games on the consoles have crappy graphics. See PS2, XBOX, Wii & DS games. Pokemon anyone?"

Thats the funniest thing I have heard yet in theis thread...did you even take a look at the best selling games of all time list?

"Fact: The best selling sport games have crappy graphics. Remember the cardboard cutout looking fans in all EA sports games?"

WTF?!?! Pretty much every single sports game since the 90's has had a MAJOR selling point of having "the next level of graphics". Every Madden games has looked great, every NBA game as well. And when I stick Fight Night Round 3 into my XBOX 360...I get blown away.

lol....where did you come up with these "Facts"?

dnuggs40

The sims and the sims 2, when released, didn't have graphics as a selling point in the slightest. Nor did WoW, only WoW had so many fanboys that they all 'decided' that their crappy graphic game was actually not crappy graphics, but it was 'artistic flair'. Obviously the graphics were made crappily, because Blizzard had a goal of getting every single person they could play this game.. They wanted it accessable to even non-PC gamer type people. The graphics.. are crappy.. Deal with it :p Doesn't mean it looks hideous or anything.

I think I'm gonna get like 20 friends to vote non-graphics whore, just to ruin the thread! LOCKITLOCKIT LOOOOCKIT

Did I say they graphics were the selling point? NO! I said the graphics were not CRAPPY when they were released. Reading comprehension is your friend ;)

I just thought you'd try to argue an actual argument corresponding to the thread, and not just a random statement that you say in such a way to pretend you're saying something intelligent. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Most of this thread's argument was based on the amount of money spent on attaining such 'graphics', therefore being a whore, because you're willing to spend whatever money for it. You can't say 'the graphics were not crappy' as though you're speaking a fact. I can reasonably (or at least more reasonably) say that it wasn't a selling point.

Yes...kinda like your "just deal with it logic" huh? Again...the graphics were anything but crappy when they were released...and you are wrong.

"You can't say 'the graphics were not crappy' as though you're speaking a fact."

Of course I can, all one must do is compare the games against other titles during it's release year. If the game holds up well against it's peers...it's not crappy ;)

"I can reasonably (or at least more reasonably) say that it wasn't a selling point. "

No...you can't. Unless you work in either of those companies marketing department, please don't tell us what the "selling" point for those games are. I am sure that varies from person to person.

See...isn't logic fun?

'Crappy graphics', or 'non-crappy graphics' is completely is purely and 100% opinion, no matter what you say. How do you judge if the 'game holds up to it's peers' graphically? Did you.. 'look' at it? And then 'look' at other games? Hm, good, it's obviously fact, now. Oh, no, wait.. You used a graphic-meter, and plugged it into your computer, and it read some high number, of course.. Oh, no wait.. You looked at the specifications of the game's engine compared to other engines of the same time, right? And of course, the sims game engine is waaay up there.

You cannot reasonably say it like it's a fact; that's just unreasonable, and unlogical. What you can say is that the company put a certain amount of time and money into the game, and judging by the the graphics engine they paid for or made you can reasonably assume that it was a relatively cheap one; meant to be easy for anyone to run and therefore more accessable to most people with computers, therefore maximizing their sales. That fact is cut and dry, and I can say it, and I am saying it, and it's easily and obviously true.

'The graphics are not crappy' means nothing.. It's vomit from your mouth- worth as much, at least. Look at numbers, and then make a factual statement, or at least say 'in my opinion, *vomit worthless words*'

lol

Graphics are technical by nature, and can be measured easily.  Wether you admit it or not, one can plainly see if one game's graphics holds up well to it's peers.  Things like textures, lighting, shadows, and other aspects are not "opinion", and can be easily measured even by the layman.  One can plainly see FEAR holds up well againsts its peers and does not have "crappy graphics".  And likewise in the crap department.  One can take an older game...let's say Planescape Torment.  Against TODAY'S standards Planescape DOES have "crappy graphics".  Not just becuase it's older, but becuase it's TECHNICALLY inferior in both capabilities and technologies.  See...fun right? ;)

On the otherhand..."selling point" is COMPLETELY subjective.

"'The graphics are not crappy' means nothing.. It's vomit from your mouth- worth as much, at least. Look at numbers, and then make a factual statement, or at least say 'in my opinion, *vomit worthless words*'"

Actually...the only vomit and mistruths being spewed is by you. 

lol

Graphics are technical by nature, and can be measured easily. Wether you admit it or not, one can plainly see if one game's graphics holds up well to it's peers. Things like textures, lighting, shadows, and other aspects are not "opinion", and can be easily measured even by the layman. One can plainly see FEAR holds up well againsts its peers and does not have "crappy graphics". And likewise in the crap department. One can take an older game...let's say Planescape Torment. Against TODAY'S standards Planescape DOES have "crappy graphics". Not just becuase it's older, but becuase it's TECHNICALLY inferior in both capabilities and technologies. See...fun right? ;)

On the otherhand..."selling point" is COMPLETELY subjective.

"'The graphics are not crappy' means nothing.. It's vomit from your mouth- worth as much, at least. Look at numbers, and then make a factual statement, or at least say 'in my opinion, *vomit worthless words*'"

Actually...the only vomit and mistruths being spewed is by you.

dnuggs40

You can (and people have) said that graphics of games who had extremely high quality graphics in terms of technicality  are crappy looking games.

You can not, however, (quite as easily at least) suggest that a certain thing is a developers selling point of a game when they put relatively minimal amounts of money and time and effort into that dimension of the game.

/\ Simple, and very obvious, written just for you 

Actually I bought The Sims and all expansions.. and Sims 2 w/ expansions.. Why? When the Sims came o8ut they DID NOT have crappy graphics... Nor Did Sims 2.. the selling point for Sims 2 was being able to zome all the way in and see the detail of small objects. Also the ability to build multi tear buildings.. 3rd floor +. As well as the new gameplay mechanics like aspirations etc.. But the selling point (at least for me) was the graphics in the Sims 2. The Sims also had great graphics but it was one of the only games around that you could do as you wish and play "real life". The innovation along with the graphical representation led me to buy the game.

About cars.. I bought a 350Z back in 03 because of the horsepower...  As well as being pretty nifty ride.  Along with the resale value etc. I chose this car over other mid range sports cars.. (A Vette is regarded as high end .. thus the nice price jump) because of the style of the vehicle.. its horsepower.. its resale value.  (NOTE: this was back in 03) I got it fully loaded.. Nav system, Bose CD Changer/tape player.. XM-Sat radio.. the aero package, splash guards.. step guard etc.. Why did I do this? Because I was concerned about APPEARANCE! 

Point being, I choose my games and my vehicles.. based on several factors and the one thing I pay attention to is APPEARANCE. Thus "graphic whore".

Ergo, I stand by Dnuggs FTW :)

lol

Graphics are technical by nature, and can be measured easily.  Wether you admit it or not, one can plainly see if one game's graphics holds up well to it's peers.  Things like textures, lighting, shadows, and other aspects are not "opinion", and can be easily measured even by the layman.  One can plainly see FEAR holds up well againsts its peers and does not have "crappy graphics".  And likewise in the crap department.  One can take an older game...let's say Planescape Torment.  Against TODAY'S standards Planescape DOES have "crappy graphics".  Not just becuase it's older, but becuase it's TECHNICALLY inferior in both capabilities and technologies.  See...fun right? ;)

On the otherhand..."selling point" is COMPLETELY subjective.

"'The graphics are not crappy' means nothing.. It's vomit from your mouth- worth as much, at least. Look at numbers, and then make a factual statement, or at least say 'in my opinion, *vomit worthless words*'"

Actually...the only vomit and mistruths being spewed is by you. 

dnuggs40

Not to wade into the Draconus/Dnuggs crossfire, but I think you're oversimplifying the term 'graphics' in a way you don't have authority to. A few points:

- Even if you accept the claim the graphics are purely technical in nature, there's no basis for your suggestion that technical achievements can be quantified and measured. You could, perhaps, break down and identify in measurable terms the technical capability of the tools used to create a given effect--ie, this DX10 engine pushes more information into a surface than that one--but that says nothing about how a given tool is implemented. An extraorindarily powerful tool could be used to generate a texture which, to some eyes, isn't prettier or more convincing than a texture produced by another engine. The value of a particular technical ability is subjective, depending on the application and the execution. You can quantify a tool's power, maybe, but how do you quantify how well it's implemented? What's the yardstick?

- More importantly, technical capability becomes less quanitifiable if you move away from photrealism. What gives you the authority to declare that photrealism is the universal goal of those who craft game visuals? It might be a goal of certain eggheads at Nvidia, or the programmers developing a particular engine in the backroom at Id or Valve, but you've stripped this discussion down to a meaningless level if the photorealism capabilities of a given title's engine determine the worth of its graphics. There are magnificent looking games which don't aim to portray pores and grime on the skin.

- Finally, along the same lines, you're completely ignoring an enormous facet of game visuals: art direction. As a visual designer and an artist, I've got to admit, I take personal offense at that. In film, for instance, the most powerful effects tools buried in a suite of Macs at a California post-production studio don't mean squat if the techies are applying them to unappealing, uninteresting designs. Great looking games, like great looking movies, aren't just the product of powerful production tools--they're the product of talented art directors and designers who spend months and months dreaming up the proper look of each character, weapon, setting, vehicle, tree and building.

Take all that together, and Dracunos is absolutely right in my opinion. Unless you define yourself out of this debate by reducing graphical value to a pure volume of bytes and pipelines, there's a subjective humanity you can't strip away from the worth of game visuals.

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.mimic-Denmark

 Haha, Doom 3 and lightning, good one. 

Unless you define yourself out of this debate by reducing graphical value to a pure volume of bytes and pipelines, there's a subjective humanity you can't strip away from the worth of game visuals.

lokstah

OMG that statement is quote and ovation worthy! *Applause* 

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

lol

Graphics are technical by nature, and can be measured easily.  Wether you admit it or not, one can plainly see if one game's graphics holds up well to it's peers.  Things like textures, lighting, shadows, and other aspects are not "opinion", and can be easily measured even by the layman.  One can plainly see FEAR holds up well againsts its peers and does not have "crappy graphics".  And likewise in the crap department.  One can take an older game...let's say Planescape Torment.  Against TODAY'S standards Planescape DOES have "crappy graphics".  Not just becuase it's older, but becuase it's TECHNICALLY inferior in both capabilities and technologies.  See...fun right? ;)

On the otherhand..."selling point" is COMPLETELY subjective.

"'The graphics are not crappy' means nothing.. It's vomit from your mouth- worth as much, at least. Look at numbers, and then make a factual statement, or at least say 'in my opinion, *vomit worthless words*'"

Actually...the only vomit and mistruths being spewed is by you. 

lokstah

Not to wade into the Draconus/Dnuggs crossfire, but I think you're oversimplifying the term 'graphics' in a way you don't have authority to. A few points:

- Even if you accept the claim the graphics are purely technical in nature, there's no basis for your suggestion that technical achievements can be quantified and measured. You could, perhaps, break down and identify in measurable terms the technical capability of the tools used to create a given effect--ie, this DX10 engine pushes more information into a surface than that one--but that says nothing about how a given tool is implemented. An extraorindarily powerful tool could be used to generate a texture which, to some eyes, isn't prettier or more convincing than a texture produced by another engine. The value of a particular technical ability is subjective, depending on the application and the execution. You can quantify a tool's power, maybe, but how do you quantify how well it's implemented? What's the yardstick?

- More importantly, technical capability becomes less quanitifiable if you move away from photrealism. What gives you the authority to declare that photrealism is the universal goal of those who craft game visuals? It might be a goal of certain eggheads at Nvidia, or the programmers developing a particular engine in the backroom at Id or Valve, but you've stripped this discussion down to a meaningless level if the photorealism capabilities of a given title's engine determine the worth of its graphics. There are magnificent looking games which don't aim to portray pores and grime on the skin.

- Finally, along the same lines, you're completely ignoring an enormous facet of game visuals: art direction. As a visual designer and an artist, I've got to admit, I take personal offense at that. In film, for instance, the most powerful effects tools buried in a suite of Macs at a California post-production studio don't mean squat if the techies are applying them to unappealing, uninteresting designs. Great looking games, like great looking movies, aren't just the product of powerful production tools--they're the product of talented art directors and designers who spend months and months dreaming up the proper look of each character, weapon, setting, vehicle, tree and building.

Take all that together, and Dracunos is absolutely right in my opinion. Unless you define yourself out of this debate by reducing graphical value to a pure volume of bytes and pipelines, there's a subjective humanity you can't strip away from the worth of game visuals.

You have to be kidding...a games graphics cannot be measured againsts it's peers?  It's not a matter of opinion FEAR's graphics are better then HL1...

It's not a perfect science...but it certainly is quantifiable and easy to determine wether or not a particular game has sophisticated graphics, or wether or not the art direction makes up for any deficiencies.

Also...exactly what is he right about?  He said graphics are completely subjective, and "selling point" is the only real thing we can measure.  That's completely arse backwards.  Selling point is what is subjective.  Any given game can have many selling points to many different people, on the otherhand, graphics *are* technical, can be measured as well as compared to it's peers.

Of course there is a human element, but art style is not graphics...you are confusing them.  They are very seperate entities, though both work to produce visuals.  Graphics are technical, are based on technology, and can be properly analyzed to determine if one game makes another look like crap.  If Planescape Torment came out today, the graphics both scientifically and just plain damn common sense would tell you the suck by todays standards and technology.  on the otherhand...you could debate for DAYS about wether or not the art style could carry it and make it acceeptable. 

There is a BIG difference....

And just to drive the point home...lets look at Gran Tourismo 3 vs Gran Tourismo 4.  Same art style, but we can definitely see the graphics ARE better.  And not just better as in "in my opinion they are better", but in the actual sense of the word.  The resolutions are higher, the technology running it better, the images sharper and better modeled. 

It's quantifiable...and therefore provable.

Heck...here's another example.  Let's take the same game...for this example lets use STALKER.  Most modern games have graphics options...you know...High Medium Low, Shadow Quality, Lighting Engine, and other scalable options.  Each one has a technical impact on the game.  The ART STYLE never changes on any setting...but...the graphics DO improve when you set the option higher.  STALKER on high has better graphics then STALKER on low.  This is undenyable, completely provable, and just damn common sense...

What if you had 2 women to choose from, say you've been in a war for years and are finally returning home. Both of them like to cook, do house chores, laundry, take care of the kids and are rant-free. One of them is pretty and the other isn't that much. Who would you choose?

Of course you would! As would almost anyone in their sane mind! That is why graphics are so important in games. That is why each of us is a graphic wh*re in some way!

What if you had 2 women to choose from, say you've been in a war for years and are finally returning home. Both of them like to cook, do house chores, laundry, take care of the kids and are rant-free. One of them is pretty and the other isn't that much. Who would you choose?

 

 

 

Of course you would! As would almost anyone in their sane mind! That is why graphics are so important in games. That is why each of us is a graphic wh*re in some way!

Arcadius

Good point.

Most of the topics here seem to be about graphics. And I don't like that. More and more graphic competitions.

 Graphics don't make a good game, they make a good game better. Let's take Lost Planet. It looks awesome, but it's just headless shooting. I don't want to kill 40 soldiers with a minigun just because it looks good.

 I still play frequently Battlefield 1942 and Heroes of Might and Magic II/III, because they are great games.

 I'll face it though. STALKER would suck without the great lighting. Best thing about the game was the atmosphere in dungeons. Would there be that atmosphere without the lighting? There's many other games like that too.

Most of the topics here seem to be about graphics. And I don't like that. More and more graphic competitions.

 Graphics don't make a good game, they make a good game better. Let's take Lost Planet. It looks awesome, but it's just headless shooting. I don't want to kill 40 soldiers with a minigun just because it looks good.

 I still play frequently Battlefield 1942 and Heroes of Might and Magic II/III, because they are great games.

 I'll face it though. STALKER would suck without the great lighting. Best thing about the game was the atmosphere in dungeons. Would there be that atmosphere without the lighting? There's many other games like that too.

Most of the topics here seem to be about graphics. And I don't like that. More and more graphic competitions.

 Graphics don't make a good game, they make a good game better. Let's take Lost Planet. It looks awesome, but it's just headless shooting. I don't want to kill 40 soldiers with a minigun just because it looks good.

 I still play frequently Battlefield 1942 and Heroes of Might and Magic II/III, because they are great games.

 I'll face it though. STALKER would suck without the great lighting. Best thing about the game was the atmosphere in dungeons. Would there be that atmosphere without the lighting? There's many other games like that too.

RK-Mara

I don't know if I agree that it would suck without the lighting, but you are absolutely correct that played on high settings, it deffinetly adds alot to the game.

There is a huge difference playing with full dynamic lights and the DX 8 lighting.  It adds alot of atmosphere, which really makes the game great. 

Though in this example I would say the graphics add to the gameplay, but I don't think that is the case for most games.  For instance, FEAR played at high is really no more fun then FEAR played on medium.  The graphics don't add much to the gameplay, but we can all agree it certainly looks better on high.

I think this topic should be locked

HOWEVER its always fun to have a war, so ill say not to lock it

P.d

Graphics without gameplay = no game

Gameplay without graphics= no game (well you can play but not see so its the same)

See we need both

Discuss

I like good graphics as much as anyone else, but if the gameplay sucks then the game is still bad - it's just a bad game that looks pretty.   Graphics are great for the 'wow' factor, or helping to get you immersed, but after about the first 20 minutes they just fade into the background as you concentrate on what you are supposed to be doing in the game.

That is not to say that the graphics throughout the game should not be consistent and of equal quality, because it would certainly be noticeable if you stumble across an environment or characters that do not look as good as the rest of the game.  In that respect, it would hurt immersion.

The key issue for me when looking at the graphics vs gameplay issue is that several developers in recent years have seemed to focus more on the visuals than the core gameplay, and some games have suffered as a result.  I actually start to shudder when people start throwing around the word 'cinematic' because it invariably means on-the-rails linear heavily scripted gameplay, which is more like an interactive movie than a game.  There has to be a balance between good graphics and good gameplay.

At the end of the day, though, I can still pick up games from past years and play through them and have a great time, in spite of their dated graphics, because the gameplay is solid and still as enjoyable today as it was back then.  I would not have the same interest in those games if the graphics had been the priority, and the gameplay was average - because no matter how great you think the graphics are at the time of the game's release, five years from now you perception will change as graphical quality continues to improve.

Ultima Underworld looked fantastic compared to previous RPGs at the time - but today it looks like crap.  Graphics rarely age that well, but gameplay can remain consistently good.

he is right, i look at starcraft and i still think it has nice graphicsbarney_calhoun_

No argument there, but SC2 graphics are likely to be better and if gameplay/story remains true to what made SC1 great, people could prefer the second. Still is about graphics.

Dnuggs, two responses.

First, in regards to graphics versus art. We're going to have to disagree here. I'm not about to grant you power of PC Gaming Terminology Arbitrator; I don't accept your insistance that these are wholly seperate concepts. I've never defined the terms of this discussion according to that stipulation, and I'm not about to now.

Why? Because, I'd argue, outside of a neutral tech demo--we're discussing these concepts in practice--the facets are not divisible. A graphics rendering technology is a purely mechanical device; it determines the pallette of techniques and tools available to artists. Without applying designed material to them (ie, a stone wall, based on a particular piece of research and design), and without designers and developers determining how to execute those tools, graphics technologies are meaningless. There are countless examples of multiple games using nearly identical software to achieve very different results.

I disagree with this statement:

"lets look at Gran Tourismo 3 vs Gran Tourismo 4.  Same art style, but we can definitely see the graphics ARE better.  And not just better as in "in my opinion they are better", but in the actual sense of the word.  The resolutions are higher, the technology running it better, the images sharper and better modeled."

Again, I reject your use of the word "graphics" and the term "better graphics." I'd accept that the following statements could be considered quantifiable matters of fact: The graphics resolution of GT4 is better than GT3, or the models are more complex. But I flatly disagree with a definition of terms which obliterates any subjective observation in discussions of graphics quality.

I've simply got a more comprehensive definition of graphics in mind.

Addressing your STALKER argument, I could make the same two points. Firstly, where art versus technology is concerned, I'd argue that scaling back STALKER's settings simply highlights how interconnected the two concepts are. The engine, its technological capabilities, and how those capabilities are employed, serve the sole purpose of realizing the input of STALKER's designers. Pulling the engine back only reduces the quanitiy of design information expressed. Cranking the engine up increases the integrity of the image, but not indefinitely; at its highest level, it only reveals the best work the designers came up with, and it reveals how well the designers, modelers, and programmers worked together. Another game with the same engine could make better or worse use of similar artwork--or it could make better or worse use of superior artwork, or inferior artwork.

The relative value of these many facets don't fall into a quanitifiable, boneheadedly-simple definition.

The funny thing is, you are the one boiling the terms down into bone headed deffinitions.

"Again, I reject your use of the word "graphics" and the term "better graphics." I'd accept that the following statements could be considered quantifiable matters of fact: The graphics resolution of GT4 is better than GT3, or the models are more complex. But I flatly disagree with a definition of terms which obliterates any subjective observation in discussions of graphics quality."

Are you high or something?  What makes better graphics?  C'mon man lol.  GTA4 has BETTER graphics then GTA3.  This is a fact.  I really don't care wether you reject it or not, becuase thats is just plain ignorant...

And since you can't even admit this fundemental truth, and continue to pretty much just bang your head against a wall in denial, contiuation of this argument is pointless.

he is right, i look at starcraft and i still think it has nice graphicsbarney_calhoun_

Did you not play SC1 back in the day? Or just recently?

Even the gameplay is pretty simple compared to more modern games like CoH.

Games look better to you if your already familiar to the games.. if SC1 was released today I doubt it would be anything but an indy game with a good storyline to back it up.. and no real fanfair.

Heck, I still remember SC1 running on my P1 150mhz comp.. with Windows 95c

I still enjoy Starcraft 1 but because I was there when it released.. I saw the fantastic graphics it had.. even when compared to C&C.

"Again, I reject your use of the word "graphics" and the term "better graphics." I'd accept that the following statements could be considered quantifiable matters of fact: The graphics resolution of GT4 is better than GT3, or the models are more complex. But I flatly disagree with a definition of terms which obliterates any subjective observation in discussions of graphics quality."

I think you are comparing graphics on those games (which I haven't played by the way) as if they were art, which in turn of course allows the subjective appreciation you argue. Perhaps this debate shouldn't be about artistic conception on game graphics, but about graphic horse power, since there, you can always have an absolute truth.

[QUOTE="barney_calhoun_"]he is right, i look at starcraft and i still think it has nice graphicsAlkpaz

Did you not play SC1 back in the day? Or just recently?

Even the gameplay is pretty simple compared to more modern games like CoH.

Games look better to you if your already familiar to the games.. if SC1 was released today I doubt it would be anything but an indy game with a good storyline to back it up.. and no real fanfair.

Heck, I still remember SC1 running on my P1 150mhz comp.. with Windows 95c

I still enjoy Starcraft 1 but because I was there when it released.. I saw the fantastic graphics it had.. even when compared to C&C.

QFT man, and kudos on remembering your computer back then. I can't remember exactly but it should be pretty close to yours!

"Take us into orbit Mr. Malmstein(?) we've seen enough..."

[QUOTE="barney_calhoun_"]he is right, i look at starcraft and i still think it has nice graphicsAlkpaz

Did you not play SC1 back in the day? Or just recently?

Even the gameplay is pretty simple compared to more modern games like CoH.

Games look better to you if your already familiar to the games.. if SC1 was released today I doubt it would be anything but an indy game with a good storyline to back it up.. and no real fanfair.

Heck, I still remember SC1 running on my P1 150mhz comp.. with Windows 95c

I still enjoy Starcraft 1 but because I was there when it released.. I saw the fantastic graphics it had.. even when compared to C&C.

I agree.  I think nostalgia plays a big part with people enjoying old game.  If SC was released today, I really doubt it would be such a success, and countless people would be flooding these forums saying, "wtf Blizzard?  These graphics are horrible!  It's freaking 2007 for gods sake!".

I am not claiming the game would be any different though, and it would still probally be a great game (gameplay wise), but I really doubt many people would think it "looked great".

Ok, I have read every single post on this thread and still do not know if I am a graphics who*e or not.  Whenever I play a game obviously I put the graphics up as high as possible BUT I make sure that my AA is at least 4x and my AF is at least 16x and I can get at least 30 frames.

*Runs off the replay the Starcraft campaign*

Ok, I have read every single post on this thread and still do not know if I am a graphics who*e or not.  Whenever I play a game obviously I put the graphics up as high as possible BUT I make sure that my AA is at least 4x and my AF is at least 16x and I can get at least 30 frames.

 

*Runs off the replay the Starcraft campaign*

0N1_L3G3ND

I believe GW is a notion of a person who plays games just for the graphics, but in fact being a gw as per this topic involves quite the variety of philosophical connotations. So regarding your post, you probably are, so welcome to the club!

P.S. being a GW is good. (as per what is discussed here). Gameplay is important, but graphical capacity of a game is an important factor as well.