I don't need new technology on show in my face all the time to enjoy a game, but I do need it to justify buying new systems. I still play SWOS a lot, thats a 15 year old sprite fest.
I dont really know it affects me in diffrent ways. for example i have stoped playing a game completely because the graphics just cant hold me.
But this really depends on what period of time it is. If were talking about like Max Payne, MGS, and Fable then fine but if were talking about a game that comes out and it looks like crap i cant play it.
Thats why i dont play MMO's they just cant get me. They look like a ps2 game or something but thats just me.
I'd say 3, as long as the game looks good and runs well then i'm happy... Better graphics are just a bonus if the game can pull them off without performance issues.
I'm not gonna play something that looks like rubbish. From a Pc gamer, that means most of the Wii games and that ps360 games better have something else to show.
I vote for 2, If the graphics looks really ugly then i wont really enjoy the game that much. A lot of people didn't like Halo 3's graphics i but i didn't really care, I enjoyed the game.
My enjoyment will be reduced if the graphics are ugly or bland. I expect all games to live up to the standards of the platform they're on, and no one gets a free pass for having good gameplay. On the flip side, really good graphics can do a lot for the experience, but there's diminishing returns on the amount of resources you put into graphical quality as opposed to gameplay refinement. At some point it's much better to go for increased performace (framerate etc.) instead of prettier visuals.
I'd say a 4, but only because I feel visual fidelity and gameplay are intertwined, and allow games to steer away from hand holding mechanisms such as highlighting a piece of environment, or putting up a text box to show you what a sign says.
i love seeing these current shooters with high polycounts and high res textures where enemies get hit with a dozen or so rounds reacting the same way everytime regardless of where they got shot or by what weapon just to fall down afterwards in the same one or two death animations every time
I love GTA, all of them. But when Rockstar decided they wanted to overhaul the graphics it ruined the gameplay because all the fun and excitement from the previous titles was lost.
I'm LOVING Red Dead because it's everything GTA IV should've been.
Graphics aren't important to me, it's gameplay first.
Graphics aren't important to me as presentation. If the game knows it has crappy graphics, and works with it, that's fine. If it has awful graphics and tries to overstep it's boundaries(IE going for a Crysis jungle with N64 hardware), that's where it bothers me.
I'd say a 4, but only because I feel visual fidelity and gameplay are intertwined, and allow games to steer away from hand holding mechanisms such as highlighting a piece of environment, or putting up a text box to show you what a sign says.
Pug-Nasty
this ^ i mean the metroid prime games would be half of what they are if they didn't have good graphics and it's amazing art. They also added to the atmosphere as well. To say graphics are less than a 3 would be ridiculous. 2 is a stretch.
Less important than gameplay but still important. A game needs to be artistically pleasing for me to really like it. I'm not into technical graphics much. I prefer the look of games like WoW to other technical MMOs like Age of Conan for example. Blizzard has such fantastic visuals in that game it's ridiculous.
As most everyone here can agree, it is less important than gameplay. However graphics really do enhance the ecperience and are always welcome. I voted important. Gameplay, story/setting, graphics.
Log in to comment