I Can't Believe You Care About Graphics

That is the functional purpose of all this hardware debate, right? People here want machines that can push the fanciest amounts of polygons. Years ago, fanboys compared God of War with Resident Evil 4 with Ninja Gaiden. This generation, they compared Gears of War with Metal Gear Solid 4. Now, they compare Uncharted 2 and Alan Wake. Or whatever.

Do any of you truly, honestly care?

I can understand being upset about a game running at a low framerate, or whining about screen tearing. But are you really one of those people that values those wonderful characteristics that you can only get from screenshots? Are those enormous vistas, normal-mapped textures, soft shadows, and pretty explosions the things that draw you to your favorite games?

I don't understand it, and though I may have participated in this sort of debate occasionally in the distant past, I never really have. Screenshot comparisons are dumb. The games I like most this generation are great due to things that have little to do with technical graphical quality. Look matters, but far less than fun gameplay or interesting writing. Do people overlook that?

I'd rather play Bayonetta on a PS3 than play Killzone 2. I may have greatly enjoyed Uncharted 2, but at its best moments, the technical mastery Naughty Dog demonstrated had nothing to do with it. Their dynamic cast of characters and acrobatic mix of platforming and gunplay was the key. Deadly Premonition is one of my favorite games this year, and it probably could be running on a Dreamcast emulator for all I know. None of that takes away from its charms.

I know people here want to debate the merits of their respective consoles, but the graphics war has to be the least important aspect of that debate. Who cares? If you want all your games running above 1080p with better framerates and nicer effects, buy a PC. The games and the features are what count. In that respect, every console has something to offer.

How can people equate game or console quality with graphical shininess?

I'm old school, so I don't really fit in this category... ;)

Yes I care about graphics, because great graphics + great gameplay > great gameplay and crap graphics. Sorry if I like my games too look good and use the hardware I paid for to the fullest, it's ok if you want to live with Ps2 graphics but some of us would like to move on.

Yes I care about graphics, because great graphics + great gameplay > great gameplay and crap graphics. Sorry if I like my games too look good and use the hardware I paid for to the fullest, it's ok if you want to live with Ps2 graphics but some of us would like to move on.

Espada12

You make it sound like 90% of the peeps here... that graphs make or break a game.

I care about great graphics up to a point. I'll take great gameplay over great graphics, but if I have the option for both, wel... I'll take both :P

I like games to look nice, but as long as it has a solid frame rate and and decent textures than its fine. Fallout 3 is one of my favorites games this gen but the dropping frame rates, freezing, lower textures, poor animations, etc did take away some enjoyment from the game

The Wii graphics are the only visuals I am disappointed with this gen, and that is only because it prevented the Wii from getting quality support from 3rd parties. It didn't need to push as many polygons as the PS3 or 360 orhave HD for that matter. It should have simply had decent power to run modern games like Dead Rising and Call of Duty.I could care less about the difference in the 360 and PS3. If someone honestly cares that much about graphics, they would be better off getting a gaming PC and upgrading it annualy.

I think it's well known that more of the.. credible members here don't care about the minor differences.

Now of course people should care to an extent, for instance when developers put out such lackadaisical efforts on the Wii. But most agree that counting leaves is a bit over the top.

The people this thread is directed towards though are intent on proving one console over another, and since comparing graphics is a tad less subjective than the quality of each console's game selection, graphics will continued to be looked at through a fine microscope.

So this thread will not change anything.

Yes I care about graphics, because great graphics + great gameplay > great gameplay and crap graphics. Sorry if I like my games too look good and use the hardware I paid for to the fullest, it's ok if you want to live with Ps2 graphics but some of us would like to move on.

Espada12

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Yes I care about graphics, because great graphics + great gameplay > great gameplay and crap graphics. Sorry if I like my games too look good and use the hardware I paid for to the fullest, it's ok if you want to live with Ps2 graphics but some of us would like to move on.

GreenGoblin2099

You make it sound like 90% of the peeps here... that graphs make or break a game.

How did my post seem like that? Hell sometimes part of the gameplay is incorporated into graphics (splinter cell/crysis), with garbage graphics you can't do that. Graphics don't make or break a game, but they do make a game better or worse.

To me graphics matter I'm not going to lie, but its not the only thing that matters. I mean a game can look great, but if its not good, its not good. Simple as that. I can't really think of many pretty games that have come out this gen that have been bad, in my opinion I think it kind of goes hand and hand. If a game is not that great, whether its because of glitchy gameplay or what may have you most likely the graphics are terrible too.

Now there have been some great games that have come out and don't have unbelieveable graphics, but they still very good looking, just not anything you haven't seen before. When a new gen comes around that is one of the important things for me, is to see where the advancements in physics, graphics, and textures. I mean to me (Not bashing the Wii, its fun I own one) the Wii is disappointing in that aspect. Playing the 360 and then going and playing the Wii its almost like something is missing. Iaccept it for what it is, but still there something about playing a game that just has meh graphics.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Yes I care about graphics, because great graphics + great gameplay > great gameplay and crap graphics. Sorry if I like my games too look good and use the hardware I paid for to the fullest, it's ok if you want to live with Ps2 graphics but some of us would like to move on.

-The-G-Man-

I read the whole thing, but sorry that you assumed I didn't because I don't share your opinion. I never said gameplay doesn't trump graphics, however you all make it seem as though graphics are the devil, you should never care about it.. well I ask why the hell not?

I'm more of a retro gamer, so I can't say I fit in this category.

Doesn't matter too much.

I can enjoy a game that has lousy graphics if the gameplay makes up for it. But in the end pretty pictures are nice! However, in practice, the better HD games are so close the difference hardly matters.

How can people equate game or console quality with graphical shininess?

sonicmj1

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Yes I care about graphics, because great graphics + great gameplay > great gameplay and crap graphics. Sorry if I like my games too look good and use the hardware I paid for to the fullest, it's ok if you want to live with Ps2 graphics but some of us would like to move on.

Espada12

You make it sound like 90% of the peeps here... that graphs make or break a game.

How did my post seem like that? Hell sometimes part of the gameplay is incorporated into graphics (splinter cell/crysis), with garbage graphics you can't do that. Graphics don't make or break a game, but they do make a game better or worse.

Because with your last statement of your 1st post "it's ok if you want to live with Ps2 graphics but some of us would like to move on" you make it clear you would not stand PS2 graphs, and PS2 graphs, while not on par with current graphs, won't break a game.

Yes I care about graphics, because great graphics + great gameplay > great gameplay and crap graphics. Sorry if I like my games too look good and use the hardware I paid for to the fullest, it's ok if you want to live with Ps2 graphics but some of us would like to move on.

Espada12

So the difference between this:

and this:

and, say, this early-gen PS2 game:

is important to you?

I mean, I want my games to be visually comprehensible, and I believe that a well-executed and consistent graphical mood can make a game better than something that isn't as well thought out. For example, I thought that Demon's Souls dark and dirty setting (as communicated through both graphics and action) did a lot for my enjoyment.

But some of the screenshot comparison stuff has no bearing on enjoyment. When cows and lemmings compare screens of Gran Turismo to screens of Forza, what do the tiny differences in cars, tracks, and lighting have to do with how much the player enjoys the game? Shouldn't they be comparing features and driving physics?

It's true, screen tearing and frame rate drops can harm an experience, however, they aren't often gamebreakers. Bayonetta on the PS3 doesn't run the smoothest, but it's a great game and very much worth playing.

I have a 46" LCD TV and I play my Wii games on it. There are jaggies and blue and other such things, but I don't care, I love those games.

Bravo, TC.

GreenGoblin2099

Of course I wouldn't stand PS2 graphics in this day and age. I have a computer that is able to play crysis on high and all my consoles can produce much much much better than PS2 graphics. Why should I tolerate garbage visuals this day and age?

Graphics (as far as aesthetics are concerned) are a very nice bonus. Gameplay and performance during gameplay are the most important factors for me.

I still play games like Homeworld and Freelancer, UT2K4, Morrowind +many of retro console games etc. because they're still fantastic games regardless of how they look nowadays.

So yeah i like graphics alot, but its really not the most important factor in a game for me.

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

Espada12

Of course I wouldn't stand PS2 graphics in this day and age. I have a computer that is able to play crysis on high and all my consoles can produce much much much better than PS2 graphics. Why should I tolerate garbage visuals this day and age?

Because the fact that they have "outdated" graphics, doesn't mean they are bad games, that's why.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

How can people equate game or console quality with graphical shininess?

Teufelhuhn

It does happen sometimes.

There may be people out there who need the best graphics to enjoy their games, but I really can't understand why. Sure, all things being equal, better graphics is ideal, but I think it's less important than some people here act.

I do appreciate good performance in terms of framerate a lot, though.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Yes I care about graphics, because great graphics + great gameplay > great gameplay and crap graphics. Sorry if I like my games too look good and use the hardware I paid for to the fullest, it's ok if you want to live with Ps2 graphics but some of us would like to move on.

sonicmj1

So the difference between this:

and this:

and, say, this early-gen PS2 game:

is important to you?

I mean, I want my games to be visually comprehensible, and I believe that a well-executed and consistent graphical mood can make a game better than something that isn't as well thought out. For example, I thought that Demon's Souls dark and dirty setting (as communicated through both graphics and action) did a lot for my enjoyment.

But some of the screenshot comparison stuff has no bearing on enjoyment. When cows and lemmings compare screens of Gran Turismo to screens of Forza, what do the tiny differences in cars, tracks, and lighting have to do with how much the player enjoys the game? Shouldn't they be comparing features and driving physics?

First off nice screenshot selection you took there :| , secondly cows and lems do compare features in GT and forza.. they also compare visuals. They compare everything, and since it's ok to compare gameplay why is it not ok to compare graphics? Who cares if it's tiny, we are on System wars that's 1/2 the fun, but in reality I still want my games to use the hardware I paid for. Crysis has outstanding gameplay and graphics, why can't I want both? Why can't I put both at equal importance? I'm not asking for everything to look like a triple A exclusive, but I am asking for is an acceptable level of visuals. I will not stand for PS2 graphics this day and age. Even games like the new wolfenstein and singularity are good enough.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

GreenGoblin2099

Of course I wouldn't stand PS2 graphics in this day and age. I have a computer that is able to play crysis on high and all my consoles can produce much much much better than PS2 graphics. Why should I tolerate garbage visuals this day and age?

Because the fact that they have "outdated" graphics, doesn't mean they are bad games, that's why.

I never said they were, nor do I hate on them for having outdated graphics, because at the time they weren't outdated graphics, but if a new game now came around with Ps2 graphics I will shun it.

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

Espada12

Of course I wouldn't stand PS2 graphics in this day and age. I have a computer that is able to play crysis on high and all my consoles can produce much much much better than PS2 graphics. Why should I tolerate garbage visuals this day and age?

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

Espada12

Of course I wouldn't stand PS2 graphics in this day and age. I have a computer that is able to play crysis on high and all my consoles can produce much much much better than PS2 graphics. Why should I tolerate garbage visuals this day and age?

I bought Crysis during the Steam sale, and I've played the demo before, but my favorite purchase so far has been the Infoversion pack, which includes Uplink: Hacker Elite. That game looks like this:

It looks good enough to accomplish its goals, and the interface is the vehicle for gameplay that feels refreshing in its overall commitment to consistency between aesthetic, setting, and gameplay even today.

Why should I dismiss such interesting games because they don't look like Crysis?

Graphics are just gravy, but always remember that the gravy can make or break the meal.

i don't really care about graphics, unless characters clip noticeably and go through another,

i prefer a good game atmosphere anyday

So you couldn't play Persona 5 if it came out on PS2? You can't play older games now? You can't play handhelds? Seems like you're limiting yourself...Bigboi500

That's not what he's saying at all, but even if it was, what's the difference?

Everyone limits themselves through certain criteria, and who's to say one's criteria are better than another.

Why should I dismiss such interesting games because they don't look like Crysis?sonicmj1

He hasn't told anyone to dismiss anything. He's commented on HIS personal preference.

From what I've seen he has no problem with people playing whatever-looking games they like.

Yeah technically there's nothing morally wrong with liking one aspect of a game to another. There's nothing wrong with anyone that likes graphics as much as gameplay. It's personal preference, and nobody here is in a position to criticize the preferences of others.UCF_Knight

Of course there's nothing morally wrong with it. I just don't understand it.

At a certain point, I'll probably have to throw my hands up and walk away, but I'd like to know why people think the way they do. It's easy to say, "Yeah, graphics matter," but that's rarely something you can quantify. Maybe I just want to understand whether people actually get invested in the graphical differences between games (especially the differences between games on 360 and PS3), or whether they only care in order to score "ownage" against the other side.

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Of course I wouldn't stand PS2 graphics in this day and age. I have a computer that is able to play crysis on high and all my consoles can produce much much much better than PS2 graphics. Why should I tolerate garbage visuals this day and age?

Espada12

Because the fact that they have "outdated" graphics, doesn't mean they are bad games, that's why.

I never said they were, nor do I hate on them for having outdated graphics, because at the time they weren't outdated graphics, but if a new game now came around with Ps2 graphics I will shun it.

Well, thanx for helping me to prove my point: you do think graphs make or break a game.

Otherwise you wouldn't shun any game out there just because it has no shiny graphs ;)

Yes I care about graphics, because great graphics + great gameplay > great gameplay and crap graphics. Sorry if I like my games too look good and use the hardware I paid for to the fullest, it's ok if you want to live with Ps2 graphics but some of us would like to move on.

Espada12

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

Bigboi500

Of course I wouldn't stand PS2 graphics in this day and age. I have a computer that is able to play crysis on high and all my consoles can produce much much much better than PS2 graphics. Why should I tolerate garbage visuals this day and age?

Nope for all except older PC games. I have never even owned a handheld.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

Because the fact that they have "outdated" graphics, doesn't mean they are bad games, that's why.

GreenGoblin2099

I never said they were, nor do I hate on them for having outdated graphics, because at the time they weren't outdated graphics, but if a new game now came around with Ps2 graphics I will shun it.

Well, thanx for helping me to prove my point: you do think graphs make or break a game.

Otherwise you wouldn't shun any game out there just because it has no shiny graphs ;)

It looks good enough to accomplish its goals, and the interface is the vehicle for gameplay that feels refreshing in its overall commitment to consistency between aesthetic, setting, and gameplay even today.

Why should I dismiss such interesting games because they don't look like Crysis?

sonicmj1

I clearly said I don't judge older games based on outdated visuals.

I'm old school, so I don't really fit in this category... ;)

GreenGoblin2099

Lol.... then why reply ;) to look "cool" that you are above the graphics comparisons?

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

Because the fact that they have "outdated" graphics, doesn't mean they are bad games, that's why.

GreenGoblin2099

I never said they were, nor do I hate on them for having outdated graphics, because at the time they weren't outdated graphics, but if a new game now came around with Ps2 graphics I will shun it.

Well, thanx for helping me to prove my point: you do think graphs make or break a game.

Otherwise you wouldn't shun any game out there just because it has no shiny graphs ;)

Excuse me for wanting a complete package, if you want to be lazy with the hardware and produce PS2 graphics on the PS3 why should I trust your game would be good?

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

I'm old school, so I don't really fit in this category... ;)

Advid-Gamer

Lol.... then why reply ;) to look "cool" that you are above the graphics comparisons?

Yup... any problem with that??:|

but I'd like to know why people think the way they dosonicmj1

Graphicsare basically the reason we spend upwards of $300 for a game console ... They advertise to be "powerful" and boast the ability to have these "real life" graphics. Basically; if I'm spending $300 for a gaming console, I would want all my games running and looking the best they can be.

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I never said they were, nor do I hate on them for having outdated graphics, because at the time they weren't outdated graphics, but if a new game now came around with Ps2 graphics I will shun it.

Espada12

Well, thanx for helping me to prove my point: you do think graphs make or break a game.

Otherwise you wouldn't shun any game out there just because it has no shiny graphs ;)

Excuse me for wanting a complete package, if you want to be lazy with the hardware and produce PS2 graphics on the PS3 why should I trust your game would be good?

I see in your sig you're playing DAO (probably on PC), so you should know the console versions have crappy graphs... does that make them crappy or lazygames??

It does happen sometimes.

sonicmj1

As video games go on, they should evolve. Including the graphics If we didn't have graphic evolution, we wouldn't be able to have some very dynamic games that rely on visuals to change gameplay.

Look at Crysis for instance. You can shoot down trees or blow apart houses and actually use the tree or house to kill enemies. Lead a couple guys into a house, stealth outside and jump on top of the roof, then punch the roof in on top of them. It will either kill them or disable them for a bit allowing you to kill them easily. Or drive a vehicle right into a hut and run the guys over, all because you can knock down the walls. In static games, you can't do anything like that.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

It looks good enough to accomplish its goals, and the interface is the vehicle for gameplay that feels refreshing in its overall commitment to consistency between aesthetic, setting, and gameplay even today.

Why should I dismiss such interesting games because they don't look like Crysis?

Espada12

I clearly said I don't judge older games based on outdated visuals.

My mistake. Doesn't that seem a little strange to you, though?

As a game player choosing between titles in the present day, what difference does it make whether the game is old or new? Do your visual standards make it harder to play last-gen games, or is it that you believe that if a game is released today with outdated graphics, it probably has bad gameplay as well?

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

I'm old school, so I don't really fit in this category... ;)

GreenGoblin2099

Lol.... then why reply ;) to look "cool" that you are above the graphics comparisons?

Yup... any problem with that??:|