Graphics Wh*res - VOTE OR DIE!

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.dnuggs40

Dnuggs, I never said GTA4 didn't sport better graphics than GTA3. That's not a matter a fact or a "fundamental truth"--you must have bombed the hell out of every philosophy or logic course you ever attempted, no offense--but it is an easily agreeable opinion. It doesn't matter whether or not you, I, the entire PC gaming community and the entire population of China shares that opinion. That doesn't make it a fact. Well, it mightif we agree that the value of "graphics" can be boiled down to a few easily quantifiable numbers, like a polygon count or image resolution, but I don't agree with that, see?

My objection (and I explained this in a really long couple of posts earlier today) is that I don't accept your definition of graphics. I don't agree that the term refers purely to technology, for reasons I already went over. (Funny thing is, again, above, you ask: "What makes better graphics?," as though I didn't share my view of that already.)

Quick recap: graphics, in my book, refers to the combined effect of artistic design, technology, and the process of interpreting that design through that technology (ie, execution). It doesn't make any sense to me to put a value on raw technological potential--with visuals, a game's technology is only as worthwhile as the artists and modelers make it, and vice-versa.

Are you so unfamiliar with generating artwork--computer or otherwise--that you think a powerful graphics engine automatically plops pores, wrinkles, beads of sweat and translucsency onto a character's skin? Or that the GTA4 engine automatically generated more polygons than the GTA3 engine? The tools that enable that level of detail need to be implemented by humans, who've made a subjective calculation that a greater level of complexity here or there will make something look better. That might SEEM like common sense, or a "fundamental truth," but that doesn't make "looking better" any less subjective a trait.

Dropping endless examples of more advanced engines which we'd all agree look better than older ones doesn't change that the principles are, still, subjective.

I also hinted in my previous post that, yeah, maybe this discussion is dead between you and I because we don't agree on fundamental definitions. I mean, we can't debate whether Oswald shot Kennedy if we disagree on what "shoot" means.

Impasse... oh well?

He does have a point.. although Dali is less detailed than Gieger both are artists of reputation. One can argue that sculptures of ancient Greece were more "artistic" in their expressions than modern artists like Alexander Calder. But, computer games are NOT artistic expressions.. PC Games ceased to be so long ago.. much like pornography in films like Deep Throat, Behind the Green Door, or Devil in Miss Jones ceased long ago and are replaced to frail copies of such classics. Literature has also "lost" such greatness in the sense of Stephen Crain, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Joseph Conrad, etc.. One could argue that Stephen Hawkin is a post modern great, and that Carl Sagan is also among them. But does "artistic" expression really travel to the medium of computer graphic design? Sure in the past like in films "Beyond the Mind's Eye" and "Festival" along with "F8", but does animation REALLY apply to games? If so then we may make the bold claim that we should judge pornography in the same light as Hollywood films. To be honest I think the greatness of both mediums died back in the early 80s..

I think graphics should "today" be judged by technological means.

Actually many games have artistic qualities. Many, many games.Games like Veautiful Joe, Okami, all the anime games. Even though most of these games are on the console, it makes no difference. Graphics, yes requires a great deal of technology, but to get to that next step. They must draw, paint, etc...ART!So don't say that art has nothing to do with gaming, because it does. Technology would be highly irrelevant without art. Things like movies, TV, music all depend on art. Gaming does too.

[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.

In 1998, back then i wassssssssss 7 and my scent for killing driven me to finish every mission. i could not even read english at that time

Oh and i dont like CoH

 I don't see graphics as something really important. For example, take this analogy from movies:

You've just seen the Matrix Revolutions (crappy movie with good gfx), and you're offered to watch Aliens (kickass movie with dated looks), would you refuse based on the worse looks? Would you enjoy this awesome movie any less because it doesn't look as good as the new stuff?

 The way I see it it's not that different for games.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

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.lokstah

Dnuggs, I never said GTA4 didn't sport better graphics than GTA3. That's not a matter a fact or a "fundamental truth"--you must have bombed the hell out of every philosophy or logic course you ever attempted, no offense--but it isan easily agreeable opinion. It doesn't matter whether or not you, I, the entire PC gaming community and the entire population of China shares that opinion. That doesn't make it a fact. Well, it mightif we agree that the value of "graphics" can be boiled down to a few easily quantifiable numbers, like a polygon count or image resolution, but I don't agree with that, see?

My objection (and I explained this in a really long couple of posts earlier today) is that I don't accept your definition of graphics. I don't agree that the term refers purely to technology, for reasons I already went over. (Funny thing is, again, above, you ask: "What makes better graphics?," as though I didn't share my view of that already.)

Quick recap: graphics, in my book, refers to the combined effect of artistic design, technology, and the process of interpreting that design through that technology (ie, execution). It doesn't make any senseto me to put a value on raw technological potential--with visuals, a game's technology is only as worthwhile as the artists and modelers make it, and vice-versa.

Are you so unfamiliar with generating artwork--computer or otherwise--that you think a powerful graphics engine automatically plops pores, wrinkles, beads of sweat and translucsency onto a character's skin? Or that the GTA4 engine automatically generated more polygons than the GTA3 engine? The tools that enablethat level of detail need to be implemented by humans, who've made a subjective calculation that a greater level of complexity here or there will make something look better. That might SEEM like common sense, or a "fundamental truth," but that doesn't make "looking better" any less subjective a trait.

Dropping endless examples of more advanced engines which we'd all agree look better than older ones doesn't change that the principles are, still, subjective.

Of course its a fact GT4 has better graphics then GT3.  And it IS a fundamental truth.  Here is the definition of fundamental:

"Pertaining to the foundation or basis; serving for the foundation. Hence: Essential, as an element, principle, or law; important; original; elementary; as, a fundamental truth; a fundamental axiom. A leading or primary principle, rule, law, or article, which serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part, as, the fundamentals of the Christian faith."

As humans we need common deffinitions and perceptions in order to advance as a society.  If we believed that modern houses are no better then mud hut's and that that the difference is debatable and subjective, we would all be living in huts.  But the simple FACT is that humans believe that huts could be improved on, and that stronger, cooler, more advanced housing is better.  The same exact fundemental truth exists for games.  If we all believed that games graphics were completely subjective, and no one game's graphics were better then anothers, we would be playing pong right now.  The simple fact is people know that advances in graphics technology and better graphics engine DO look better, and thats why there has been progress.  We also know that better graphics can also lead to advances in gameplay, such as the advance into 3D technology.  Graphics are measurable, are based on science and technology, and advance and are getting better.  No doubt about this at all.  And I garuntee, even the developers on Gran Tourismo would 100% agree that GT4 has BETTER graphics then GT3.

What you are trying to suggest is that graphics never get "better", since they are so "subjective". I think most gamers and developers have a definition of what graphics are, and that they ARE getting better. You would have us believe there hasn't been any progress, and graphics are not getting better by what you are suggesting. And yes, that IS what you are suggesting if you deny GT4 does not have better graphics then GT3.  The foundation of pc graphics are that they improve and get better, thats why we buy new cards, and that's what developers strive for.

The simple FACT GT4 has the same exact art ****as GT3, yet is ALSO technically and scientifically superior and more sophisticated proves the graphics are better (not to mention any gamer would agree). Also, my example regarding the same exact game on different levels of graphics setting also proves this.

What you are trying to do, is question the fundamentals and definitions of words. Honestly, I really don't care about having an endless debate about the semantics of "better" or "graphics", because when it comes down to it, GT4 has better graphics then GT3, FEAR on High has better graphics then FEAR on low, Doom III has better graphics then Doom II, and the list goes on forever.

"you must have bombed the hell out of every philosophy or logic course you ever attempted, no offense"

No offense taken...I have my degree and never bombed out of anything, in fact, I am quite successful.  Also, this is not analyzing the nature of the universe, this is simply discussing graphics in pc games, which are measureable and comparable, no philosophy is required ;)

He does have a point.. although Dali is less detailed than Gieger both are artists of reputation. One can argue that sculptures of ancient Greece were more "artistic" in their expressions than modern artists like Alexander Calder. But, computer games are NOT artistic expressions.. PC Games ceased to be so long ago.. much like pornography in films like Deep Throat, Behind the Green Door, or Devil in Miss Jones ceased long ago and are replaced to frail copies of such classics. Literature has also "lost" such greatness in the sense of Stephen Crain, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Joseph Conrad, etc.. One could argue that Stephen Hawkin is a post modern great, and that Carl Sagan is also among them. But does "artistic" expression really travel to the medium of computer graphic design? Sure in the past like in films "Beyond the Mind's Eye" and "Festival" along with "F8", but does animation REALLY apply to games? If so then we may make the bold claim that we should judge pornography in the same light as Hollywood films. To be honest I think the greatness of both mediums died back in the early 80s..

I think graphics should "today" be judged by technological means.

 

Alkpaz

Well said dude.

We can also discuss the artistic conception of games as PaverPopPC states, but that should be the topic of another thread.  Graphic Wh*ring should be about technological achievements in games.

Disclaimer:  I use the terms "graphical capabilities" and "graphics engine" in a purely technical sense; e.g. resolution, shader model supported, etc. 

Of course there is a human element, but art style is not graphics...you are confusing them. dnuggs40

I like that line. An engine's graphical capabilities confine what can be done with the engine; the art/style is what is created using the graphics system. So you can improve the graphics system by allowing the artistry to improve. For instance, an engine might add support for Shader 40.4 (circa 2032) that allows new visual art techniques to be used - regardless of whether the artist is striving for realism or a his or her own artistic (non-realistic) vision.

There's certainly a distinction between supporting 2048 x 2048 texture maps, or allowing the artist to use per-pixel shader programs at all, versus the artist making use of these features.

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

When I created this thread, I had no idea we were going to battle through the murky depths of visual artisitry, graphical capabilities of 3D engines, and whether or not these are even valid questions to ask, or valid terms to use.

GW thread FTW.

Disclaimer: I use the terms "graphical capabilities" and "graphics engine" in a purely technical sense; e.g. resolution, shader model supported, etc.

 

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]Of course there is a human element, but art style is not graphics...you are confusing them. Jack_Summersby

I like that line. An engine's graphical capabilities confine what can be done with the engine; the art/style is what is created using the graphics system. So you can improve the graphics system by allowing the artistry to improve. For instance, an engine might add support for Shader 40.4 (circa 2032) that allows new visual art techniques to be used - regardless of whether the artist is striving for realism or a his or her own artistic (non-realistic) vision.

There's certainly a distinction between supporting 2048 x 2048 texture maps, or allowing the artist to use per-pixel shader programs at all, versus the artist making use of these features.

[QUOTE="0N1_L3G3ND"]

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*

Jack_Summersby

When I created this thread, I had no idea we were going to battle through the murky depths of visual artisitry, graphical capabilities of 3D engines, and whether or not these are even valid questions to ask, or valid terms to use.

GW thread FTW.

So I'm a graphics who*e? WOO-HOO! There should definitely be a GS badge or something. 

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="0N1_L3G3ND"]

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

When I created this thread, I had no idea we were going to battle through the murky depths of visual artisitry, graphical capabilities of 3D engines, and whether or not these are even valid questions to ask, or valid terms to use.

GW thread FTW.

So I'm a graphics who*e? WOO-HOO! There should definitely be a GS badge or something.

Yeah!  Contact a mod, or something :-) 

Any other voters?

Or shall the GWs declare victory... 

Any other voters?

Or shall the GWs declare victory...

Jack_Summersby

The integrated graphics people count towards our score.

And let your disgusting creature of a thread die, damnit! 

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

Any other voters?

Or shall the GWs declare victory...

Dracunos

The integrated graphics people count towards our score.

And let your disgusting creature of a thread die, damnit!

NEVER.  And the IGs don't count for anything - they may just be too poor to get an 8800 GTX Ultra.  But I bet they're GWs at heart. 

[QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

Any other voters?

Or shall the GWs declare victory...

Jack_Summersby

The integrated graphics people count towards our score.

And let your disgusting creature of a thread die, damnit!

NEVER. And the IGs don't count for anything - they may just be too poor to get an 8800 GTX Ultra. But I bet they're GWs at heart.

It's only reasonable that they count for gameplay-whores and not graphics whores. Due to the fact of the logic that proves that fact.

See? Proves it. 

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

Any other voters?

Or shall the GWs declare victory...

Dracunos

The integrated graphics people count towards our score.

And let your disgusting creature of a thread die, damnit!

NEVER. And the IGs don't count for anything - they may just be too poor to get an 8800 GTX Ultra. But I bet they're GWs at heart.

It's only reasonable that they count for gameplay-whores and not graphics whores. Due to the fact of the logic that proves that fact.

See? Proves it.

I outright reject such a notion.  In fact, some would argue that IGs are GWs, and it's well proven.

THIS THREAD SHALL NEVE DIE.  

[QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

Any other voters?

Or shall the GWs declare victory...

Jack_Summersby

The integrated graphics people count towards our score.

And let your disgusting creature of a thread die, damnit!

NEVER. And the IGs don't count for anything - they may just be too poor to get an 8800 GTX Ultra. But I bet they're GWs at heart.

It's only reasonable that they count for gameplay-whores and not graphics whores. Due to the fact of the logic that proves that fact.

See? Proves it.

I outright reject such a notion. In fact, some would argue that IGs are GWs, and it's well proven.

THIS THREAD SHALL NEVE DIE.

Your argument has no substance, is unreasonable, and you're simply repeating the same refuted points you've been saying. The fact is, the logic proves the fact of logic that proves that the IGs are Gameplay whores, obviously. They categorically fall under that, because of all the reasons. 

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"]

Any other voters?

Or shall the GWs declare victory...

Dracunos

The integrated graphics people count towards our score.

And let your disgusting creature of a thread die, damnit!

NEVER. And the IGs don't count for anything - they may just be too poor to get an 8800 GTX Ultra. But I bet they're GWs at heart.

It's only reasonable that they count for gameplay-whores and not graphics whores. Due to the fact of the logic that proves that fact.

See? Proves it.

I outright reject such a notion. In fact, some would argue that IGs are GWs, and it's well proven.

THIS THREAD SHALL NEVE DIE.

Your argument has no substance, is unreasonable, and you're simply repeating the same refuted points you've been saying. The fact is, the logic proves the fact of logic that proves that the IGs are Gameplay whores, obviously. They categorically fall under that, because of all the reasons.

Now your just playing semantics games!!! 

if it werent for graphics we would still be playing tetris.

if it werent for graphics we would still be playing tetris.

pogintx

Yeah.. Not .. gameplay.. or anything.. The other side of the argument being represented in the argument between graphics and.. gameplay.. 

I'm a graphics whore! :twisted:VfighterX

Welcome to the WINNING TEAM! 

I mean who cares about graphicspro_gamer12345

217 of the 432 voters in this thread, that's who! :P 

for all those who thinks graphics are everything u guys dont knwo anything about gaming. Games are meant to have fun with, not admire the graphics. I mean who cares about graphics, i care only for the gameplay. Games are meant to be played for the gameplay not graphics. pro_gamer12345

An upcoming forum argue-er. Definitely. Look at the stroke of logic, and coherent explainations, and the five paragraph essay form. You're going to give Jack some great arguments with that , and I'm sure he'll love it. 

[QUOTE="pro_gamer12345"]for all those who thinks graphics are everything u guys dont knwo anything about gaming. Games are meant to have fun with, not admire the graphics. I mean who cares about graphics, i care only for the gameplay. Games are meant to be played for the gameplay not graphics. Dracunos

An upcoming forum argue-er. Definitely. Look at the stroke of logic, and coherent explainations, and the five paragraph essay form. You're going to give Jack some great arguments with that , and I'm sure he'll love it.

Of Course he likes being masochistic :P 

[QUOTE="Dracunos"]

[QUOTE="pro_gamer12345"]for all those who thinks graphics are everything u guys dont knwo anything about gaming. Games are meant to have fun with, not admire the graphics. I mean who cares about graphics, i care only for the gameplay. Games are meant to be played for the gameplay not graphics. Alkpaz

An upcoming forum argue-er. Definitely. Look at the stroke of logic, and coherent explainations, and the five paragraph essay form. You're going to give Jack some great arguments with that , and I'm sure he'll love it.

Of Course he likes being masochistic :P

I actually wasn't sure how to respond to Pro Gamer. On the one hand, his argument brings me to my knees, drills holes in my whole world view, and rips the top off a brand new can of worms that has NEVER BEFORE been released upon these here forums. On the other hand, I am literate.

219 v. 202

ALL HAIL GRAPHICS!!!

[QUOTE="Alkpaz"][QUOTE="Dracunos"]

[QUOTE="pro_gamer12345"]for all those who thinks graphics are everything u guys dont knwo anything about gaming. Games are meant to have fun with, not admire the graphics. I mean who cares about graphics, i care only for the gameplay. Games are meant to be played for the gameplay not graphics. Jack_Summersby

An upcoming forum argue-er. Definitely. Look at the stroke of logic, and coherent explainations, and the five paragraph essay form. You're going to give Jack some great arguments with that , and I'm sure he'll love it.

Of Course he likes being masochistic :P

I actually wasn't sure how to respond to Pro Gamer. On the one hand, his argument brings me to my knees, drills holes in my whole world view, and rips the top off a brand new can of worms that has NEVER BEFORE been released upon these here forums. On the other hand, I am literate.

219 v. 202

ALL HAIL GRAPHICS!!!

See, the fact is.. Most people.. Do not consider themselves graphics whores, considering your poll.. So you LOSE

My semantics is win 

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Alkpaz"][QUOTE="Dracunos"]

[QUOTE="pro_gamer12345"]for all those who thinks graphics are everything u guys dont knwo anything about gaming. Games are meant to have fun with, not admire the graphics. I mean who cares about graphics, i care only for the gameplay. Games are meant to be played for the gameplay not graphics. Dracunos

An upcoming forum argue-er. Definitely. Look at the stroke of logic, and coherent explainations, and the five paragraph essay form. You're going to give Jack some great arguments with that , and I'm sure he'll love it.

Of Course he likes being masochistic :P

I actually wasn't sure how to respond to Pro Gamer. On the one hand, his argument brings me to my knees, drills holes in my whole world view, and rips the top off a brand new can of worms that has NEVER BEFORE been released upon these here forums. On the other hand, I am literate.

219 v. 202

ALL HAIL GRAPHICS!!!

See, the fact is.. Most people.. Do not consider themselves graphics whores, considering your poll.. So you LOSE

My semantics is win

I have a new rule: 

From here on out, people running integrated graphics are not real PC Gamers (they're not really even PEOPLE), and therefore do not count.  Period.

GWs FTW. 

[QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Alkpaz"][QUOTE="Dracunos"]

[QUOTE="pro_gamer12345"]for all those who thinks graphics are everything u guys dont knwo anything about gaming. Games are meant to have fun with, not admire the graphics. I mean who cares about graphics, i care only for the gameplay. Games are meant to be played for the gameplay not graphics. Jack_Summersby

An upcoming forum argue-er. Definitely. Look at the stroke of logic, and coherent explainations, and the five paragraph essay form. You're going to give Jack some great arguments with that , and I'm sure he'll love it.

Of Course he likes being masochistic :P

I actually wasn't sure how to respond to Pro Gamer. On the one hand, his argument brings me to my knees, drills holes in my whole world view, and rips the top off a brand new can of worms that has NEVER BEFORE been released upon these here forums. On the other hand, I am literate.

219 v. 202

ALL HAIL GRAPHICS!!!

See, the fact is.. Most people.. Do not consider themselves graphics whores, considering your poll.. So you LOSE

My semantics is win

I have a new rule:

From here on out, people running integrated graphics are not real PC Gamers (they're not really even PEOPLE), and therefore do not count. Period.

GWs FTW.

Rediculous! Absolutely atrocious.  The sheer fact that people with so little money to spend on computer parts, but STILL play PC games despite that and don't give up PC gaming for console gaming entirely are TRULY dedicated and OBVIOUSLY count towards our score. Checkmate!

Gameplay is meaningless if you don't like the look of it.

I love the gameplay in the Delta Force games, but I can't stand to look at those dated graphics...meaning I'll await Crysis.

Brains, not brawn? screw that...crysis' brawn will kick your Delta Force's brains.

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Alkpaz"][QUOTE="Dracunos"]

[QUOTE="pro_gamer12345"]for all those who thinks graphics are everything u guys dont knwo anything about gaming. Games are meant to have fun with, not admire the graphics. I mean who cares about graphics, i care only for the gameplay. Games are meant to be played for the gameplay not graphics. Dracunos

An upcoming forum argue-er. Definitely. Look at the stroke of logic, and coherent explainations, and the five paragraph essay form. You're going to give Jack some great arguments with that , and I'm sure he'll love it.

Of Course he likes being masochistic :P

I actually wasn't sure how to respond to Pro Gamer. On the one hand, his argument brings me to my knees, drills holes in my whole world view, and rips the top off a brand new can of worms that has NEVER BEFORE been released upon these here forums. On the other hand, I am literate.

219 v. 202

ALL HAIL GRAPHICS!!!

See, the fact is.. Most people.. Do not consider themselves graphics whores, considering your poll.. So you LOSE

My semantics is win

I have a new rule:

From here on out, people running integrated graphics are not real PC Gamers (they're not really even PEOPLE), and therefore do not count. Period.

GWs FTW.

Rediculous! Absolutely atrocious. The sheer fact that people with so little money to spend on computer parts, but STILL play PC games despite that and don't give up PC gaming for console gaming entirely are TRULY dedicated and OBVIOUSLY count towards our score. Checkmate!

Damn you and your fancy logic!!!

[QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Alkpaz"][QUOTE="Dracunos"]

[QUOTE="pro_gamer12345"]for all those who thinks graphics are everything u guys dont knwo anything about gaming. Games are meant to have fun with, not admire the graphics. I mean who cares about graphics, i care only for the gameplay. Games are meant to be played for the gameplay not graphics. Jack_Summersby

An upcoming forum argue-er. Definitely. Look at the stroke of logic, and coherent explainations, and the five paragraph essay form. You're going to give Jack some great arguments with that , and I'm sure he'll love it.

Of Course he likes being masochistic :P

I actually wasn't sure how to respond to Pro Gamer. On the one hand, his argument brings me to my knees, drills holes in my whole world view, and rips the top off a brand new can of worms that has NEVER BEFORE been released upon these here forums. On the other hand, I am literate.

219 v. 202

ALL HAIL GRAPHICS!!!

See, the fact is.. Most people.. Do not consider themselves graphics whores, considering your poll.. So you LOSE

My semantics is win

I have a new rule:

From here on out, people running integrated graphics are not real PC Gamers (they're not really even PEOPLE), and therefore do not count. Period.

GWs FTW.

Rediculous! Absolutely atrocious. The sheer fact that people with so little money to spend on computer parts, but STILL play PC games despite that and don't give up PC gaming for console gaming entirely are TRULY dedicated and OBVIOUSLY count towards our score. Checkmate!

Damn you and your fancy logic!!!

And my violent and aggressive  use of capitalization. I sounded like I was in the no spin zone.

As P. Diddy would say:

VOTE OR DIE!!!

I am one of thouse people that really care about the graphics more than any thing and what I see that the graphics not realstic and they are make every thing bright and shining to show that the graphics are cool which is really bad and horible ,I dont like how they do the graphics now and if u really take a look at the faces of the people, u would find it brighting and shining  from the light which is not realstic ,I dont like the graphics thouse days actually it become worse and not realstic.

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Alkpaz"][QUOTE="Dracunos"]

[QUOTE="pro_gamer12345"]for all those who thinks graphics are everything u guys dont knwo anything about gaming. Games are meant to have fun with, not admire the graphics. I mean who cares about graphics, i care only for the gameplay. Games are meant to be played for the gameplay not graphics. Dracunos

An upcoming forum argue-er. Definitely. Look at the stroke of logic, and coherent explainations, and the five paragraph essay form. You're going to give Jack some great arguments with that , and I'm sure he'll love it.

Of Course he likes being masochistic :P

I actually wasn't sure how to respond to Pro Gamer. On the one hand, his argument brings me to my knees, drills holes in my whole world view, and rips the top off a brand new can of worms that has NEVER BEFORE been released upon these here forums. On the other hand, I am literate.

219 v. 202

ALL HAIL GRAPHICS!!!

See, the fact is.. Most people.. Do not consider themselves graphics whores, considering your poll.. So you LOSE

My semantics is win

I have a new rule:

From here on out, people running integrated graphics are not real PC Gamers (they're not really even PEOPLE), and therefore do not count. Period.

GWs FTW.

Rediculous! Absolutely atrocious. The sheer fact that people with so little money to spend on computer parts, but STILL play PC games despite that and don't give up PC gaming for console gaming entirely are TRULY dedicated and OBVIOUSLY count towards our score. Checkmate!

Damn you and your fancy logic!!!

And my violent and aggressive  use of capitalization. I sounded like I was in the no spin zone.

ok I know that the gameplay is really important too but grahics are important as much as the gameplay ,let me tell u something nintendo have a very cool gameplay but they dont have a very good graphics for that reason not all the people like it and I know that there is alot of people love it but at the same time there is alot of people hate the graphics so they didnt buy it,u cant say that people that take care of graphics dosent understand any thing ,I am with u that the gameplay is important but its not every thing.

Hmmmm I would say I am more of a graphics groupie.

How is that different?  Well, my terms are conditional...I dont go whoring myself off to the nicest looking things that come by, I need some stature in my clients!

So, if "stature" is gameplay, and "looks" are visual complexity in a game, then I am a graphics groupie!  I wont sell myself away to some jacka** in a fly car with the toned abs and masculine chin, but I would totally do that to every member of Metallica!

Does that make sense?

graphics whore to the max... very expensive too. ^_^

although, the fact that being a graphics whore is soon going to mean upgrading to windows-cough-bug-infested-vista-cough... is going to suck so much hairy balls, that.... it's just going to SUCK.

Hmmmm I would say I am more of a graphics groupie.

How is that different? Well, my terms are conditional...I dont go whoring myself off to the nicest looking things that come by, I need some stature in my clients!mrbojangles25

lol