"i don't care about graphics" = you just don't get it

[uzibear]

i keep hearing this said, and i understand what people mean. that a game can look like a movie, but if it's not fun, what's the point. what these folks don't seem to understand is that graphics ARE PART OF gameplay. how the game sucks you in, how you interact with it, how you feel about what's going on, how easily you're able to get swept along with the game, graphics is all about this. it's not just pixel-power either. art design is "graphics" and if that's not important to you, you're going to have a boring life. no, graphics isn't everything, but it's a hell of a lot of what makes modern games so entertaining. i would agree that because of modern games' graphical expectations, this has made making games very expensive, and thus has created less diversity in that devs are less likely to take chances, and rather stick with similar looking shooters and what-not. but i believe most of this isn't justified as there are markets for other games than the mainstream, in the Wii, xbox arcade, pc games of all types, cellphones, iphones, and others. the main pc and console blockbusters are always going to be much about graphics, but this isn't such a bad thing. if you really don't care how gears of war, or dead space, or farcry2, or crysis looks, you're either lying, deceiving yourself, or just plain dense.

[Firey_chasm]

graphics are nice yes, but they are a bonus, the icing on the cake, nothing more.

Some of my favorite games of all time:

Doom 1+2
Diablo1+2
World of warcraft

hardly graphically powerful compared to games like crysis, but all of them are incredably fun for me.

[AngryArtichoke]

I totally disagree.

I'd rather play Zork than another boring run of DOOM 3. Far Cry 2 was **** sandwich compared to the first, but it has much better graphics.

Making a game that is visually stunning only captures my interest for about 5 minutes if it has no good content. I guess that's why I still like the SNES and C64.

[nightelph]

Graphics are one of the many parts of a game that help immerse you.

[zexmarquies01]

if you really don't care how gears of war, or dead space, or farcry2, or crysis looks, you're either lying, deceiving yourself, or just plain dense.

And this coming from a person who talks about graphics, but makes his entire post a single paragraph, making it a PITA to read. :rolleyes:

And honestly, I don't care how Gears, Dead Space, Farcry 2, or crysis looks. Those arn't my style games anyways. Obviously, you forgot the last option " or you just don't care about the game itself ".

and yes, if a game isn't fun, then the graphics mean JACK SQUAT. Why play a game just because it looks pretty? Hell, if i wanted that, I'll sit outside during sunrise/sunset with a controller, and pretend I'm the one causing the sun to rise/fall.

If a game is fun, then the graphics are only icing on the already delicious cake. Yes, they can make a game more immersive. And a good artists doing the background work can make a game look amazing, Or the correct Cell shading can make a game look almost identical to an anime. But again, if the game sucks, or the story is junk, or the game is buggy, What's the point?

Why are people still playing Star Craft, when supreme commander looks 10x prettier? Why is WoW being played, instead of Age of Conan? Diablo 2 vs Hell Gate london ( or any other Diablo clone that looks better )? Why isn't Crysis being talked about more? Why is the last version of Unreal more popular than the newest and prettiest version?

All rhetorical questions, obviously. The answer is simply, Because those games are more fun.

Especially in PC gaming, we have seen this over and over. Many times, the prettiest of the games get released..everyone runs to the store to buy it. Within about 2 months, you don't hear much about the game anymore. People found it buggy, Or too short, Or bad game play, Or a generic story ( or it has a really bad story ). And then people go back to playing the games they were playing from a year or two back.

Graphics help, but they don't make the game.

[FudgeNuggets]

Graphics are an important factor. Am I going to run out and buy $500 in video cards to play Far Cry 2 at super ultimate wank o riffic detail? No, the 360 version is just fine thank you but I find myself not able to play Wii games unless they're something extra special due to the graphics. The devs are to blame here too, they make the games look 8-bit with their Mii-style.

[Ebola]

Graphics FTW.

[nightelph]

I admit I'm a graphics whoar and I have new hardware and play new games, even if I know they're going to suck (FC2). But I play many games that have very dated graphics that have awesome gameplay.

[ratbuddy]

I spy a troll under that thar bridge!

[ghost_recon88]

If I cared about graphics that much, I guess I would have thrown my Super Nintendo and N64 out long ago :rolleyes:

[synthetic_fenix]

Honestly I don't care about graphics which is why I own a Wii. Graphics do help make the game more intense but its not a requirement for a game to be good to me. Game play is everything which is why I still go back and play pretty much all of the Half-life series games. I still play Quake And Quake 2.

And going along what the OP has to say, Crysis should be a great game due to its awesome graphics, but I wasn't that impressed with the game play and to me its not much of a replay-able game. All Crysis seems like to me, is a really long demo for the Crytek engine. Same goes for UT3, just an elaborate example of the new unreal engine and nothing more.

[John G]

I agree that graphics are part of gameplay, but it is in terms of functionality and atmosphere, not eye candy. Things like long view distances, clarity, 2D vs. 3D, things being visually hidden or visible, smooth framerate, ability to have lots of characters on screen, and the way environments are created in general are an integral part of gameplay. Extra sparkles on the water and a little higher poly count, not so much.

Many times, high performance graphics come at a cost of gameplay enhancing elements. If a game has extremely complex graphics, as is often seen with FPS games, compromises have to be made to limit the scope of the game and objects on the screen in order to maintain a playable framerate. The first thing to get limited is usually the number of characters on the screen. Many times, anymore than 3-4 visible result in choppiness. The next is view distances - which helps facilitate #1. Framerate...diversity and size of environment...the types of in game situations the devs are able to create...enemies just "appear" in gameplay...compromises keep rolling.

For example, WoW doesn't strain a high end rig with complex, dynamic lighting and ultra high poly counts, but it does give a high end rig everything it can handle by being able to see miles and miles across the environment, fairly high res textures, diverse art and modeling, lots of effects, lots of animations, and having 50+ visible characters on the screen...yeah, watch a high end rig bog down to 20 FPS in certain circumstances because of the huge scope of what is happening on screen.

There are also ways to achieve important gameplay elements with modest graphical power. This is why old games are sometimes more fun than new ones with modern graphics. I still enjoy playing a lot of SNES games...and that's not just nostalgia - I actually have the system hooked up and I actually play the games still. Although, I do cherry pick a select few titles; I don't just play random SNES games.

This is not to devalue graphics. I like good graphics as much as anyone. However, it does not preclude making a good game first - make it pretty second. It is also true that poor graphics does not make a game good.

[deathman20]

I love my graphics. If I play a game on the PC I want it to look the best it can. For me its an immersion factor into the game. If I don't get into it with certain types of games then well I might as well lit the money on fire, at least I would of got some heat out of it.

Game play is a biggy, storeline is a good one as well, immersion factor is high up there. Actual eye candy is something else... added bonus more or less. I could play D2 and be happy with it, but I still like my Crysis graphic type games.

[White_Pawn]

i think it depends on the game.

For my castle crashers, i don't think better graphics could do the game any more justice.

For any MMO-RPG, i breathe that crap. LOL

[FudgeNuggets]

I spy a troll under that thar bridge!

Who's the bigger troll, he who trolls or he who is quick to do nothing but point the finger and make accusations of a troll?

[Will Eatforfood]

People usually get an idea and work stuff around it. :/ It's always along the lines of "Ok, lets start with a shooter, have aliens, and lots of blood. Now make them realistic with eye candy." ....

Not -"I want the game to use the COD4 engine, and have semi-realistic mod-capable environments..... Now what should it be based on?.... alright. Dolphins it is!"

So it's not that they are devoting all of their energy into making it look better. I think sometimes their idea is just a bit flawed from the get-go so it doesn't withstand the test of time. By the time the project is done, the devs just want it out of their sights and on the streets. Or worse... if they wanted it out on the streets before it was even in their sights....

[VinnyTAMU]

Just stating my personal opinion on the topic, but I am a graphics snob. Once games start to age I generally dump them. Example, I never keep old consoles around, because I can't stand the aged graphics compared to current consoles. There are a few exceptions:

HL (just to refresh the story line to myself)
Tecmo Super Bowl (greatest football game in my opinion)
FFVII, FFIII, FF, FF Tactics (all great games)
Diablo II (just plain fun)
Nethack (when I have a spare terminal open)

[Morvak]

i keep hearing this said, and i understand what people mean. that a game can look like a movie, but if it's not fun, what's the point. what these folks don't seem to understand is that graphics ARE PART OF gameplay. how the game sucks you in, how you interact with it, how you feel about what's going on, how easily you're able to get swept along with the game, graphics is all about this. it's not just pixel-power either. art design is "graphics" and if that's not important to you, you're going to have a boring life. no, graphics isn't everything, but it's a hell of a lot of what makes modern games so entertaining. i would agree that because of modern games' graphical expectations, this has made making games very expensive, and thus has created less diversity in that devs are less likely to take chances, and rather stick with similar looking shooters and what-not. but i believe most of this isn't justified as there are markets for other games than the mainstream, in the Wii, xbox arcade, pc games of all types, cellphones, iphones, and others. the main pc and console blockbusters are always going to be much about graphics, but this isn't such a bad thing. if you really don't care how gears of war, or dead space, or farcry2, or crysis looks, you're either lying, deceiving yourself, or just plain dense.

Wow, who rubbed you the wrong way?

There we go again, calling people "dense" if they don't care how games look. You should get together with that member named "teoch" or something. He said if you don't like Mass Affect you are an idiot too.

Do you know how many people love the Zork games? And still play them to this very day?

And DOS games too.

No, it's not ALL about graphics.

Graphics are to games as body is to car. Looks good, but without the gameplay/engine, it's junk.

Edit: duh! i'm in the console forum

[SunRedRX7]

Give me Doom 1 and 2 any day over Doom 3.

[Will Eatforfood]

Wow, who rubbed you the wrong way?

There we go again, calling people "dense" if they don't care how games look. You should get together with that member named "teoch" or something. He said if you don't like Mass Affect you are an idiot too.

Do you know how many people love the Zork games? And still play them to this very day?

And DOS games too.

No, it's not ALL about graphics.

Graphics are to games as body is to car. Looks good, but without the gameplay/engine, it's junk.

Edit: duh! i'm in the console forum


I think they call ugly cars with super nice engines "rice".... and the ppl who drive these ugly cars, ricers. :P So what does that make a DOS-gamers?

As for the doom3 comment.... Doom 1 and 2? really....scarier than doom3? Idk what the aliens in your dreams look like, but mine look like Doom3's....

[SunRedRX7]

I think they call ugly cars with super nice engines "rice".... and the ppl who drive these ugly cars, ricers. :P So what does that make a DOS-gamer?

As for the doom3 comment.... Doom 1 and 2? really....scarier than doom3? Idk what the aliens in your dreams look like, but mine look like Doom3's....


Actually, "rice" usually refers to a car that is all show and no go. Kinda like a game where graphics are made the most important part, while gameplay is forgotten.

Never said anything about Doom 1&2 being scarey. Just that Doom 3 is boring to play and after playing through it once never played through it again except for the Classic Doom addon.

Probably another great example would be Goldeneye for the N64. Every single Bond game to come out since has been compared to Goldeneye, and none have lived up to it.

[Super Nade]

This goes to everybody:

Please respect your fellow members. It is generally a bad idea to start a thread that calls everybody who does not agree with you an idiot (which is how this started out). It is also not nice to retaliate in kind when such a thing occurs. Hence, I am closing this thread. Feel free to start a new thread without the fireworks.