RPG games - Yes
Shooters - No
Why not shooters? Because they are fast and you don't really have the time to admire the view (at least the most ones) and the lower the graphics the faster framerate you receive
As long as you can understand what's going on and nothing is interfering with my understanding I'm fine
HD graphics like Skyrim or something I see as a bonus.
One important thing in graphics is to have the graphics quality constant. Low quality graphics in a high quality graphics game is worse than if it was in a low quality graphics game. And high quality graphics in low quality graphics is also bad.
To an extent.
Visual aesthetics (what we tend to call as graphics), as well as audio aesthetics can affect the experience as much as the story, in some cases.
I like old games that have what we would consider bad graphics today, but games that are made today needs to be up to date in the graphics department. Except when they can obtain the atmosphere without great graphics. Deus Ex: HR was pretty enough, but totally objectively viewed it wasn't extremely advanced. Portal 2 didn't have the highest poly count either and I'd say that game worked out pretty darn well. Those games rely on an atmosphere that you get through the art direction. Games like COD, on the other hand, needs to pump up the graphics muscle - otherwise they can't create the same atmosphere, and thus I don't really feel like I'm in the game.
That's just my 2 cents.
[QUOTE=Demache;33303417]Considering I have never played that game, I have no idea what the hell any of that is. I'm assuming it makes more sense once you play it.[/QUOTE]
After a while you don't even see the ASCII, all I see is blonde, brunette, redhead...
gameplay is what it makes a game fun not graphics
A game should look AND play good, not one or the other. Doesn't matter if you've got awesome features and stunning gameplay if you didn't take the time to make the game look half-decent. Same goes in the other direction, the fact that a game looks great won't compensate for its lack of playability.
I honestly only consider graphics as "bad" when I can't make out what I'm seeing in the screen. Anything above that is just fine for me.
"But, 4 years later and no improvement. I mean, it can be forgiven because of how amazing these games are (whereas Call of Duty really can't)"
I'm just dropping her that that is not necessarily true.
I like games based on 3 parts, graphics, gameplay, story.
Gameplay ranks top, Story second, graphics third and putting them all together will put together my score.
Also, Are we discussing graphics or aesthetics? Graphics is the technical power. Whereas aesthetics is the style.
Take TF2, Not all that great graphics-wise. But aesthetically its wonderfull
It matters a HUGE deal for immersion. If you want your game to be as immersive as possible, it needs to have passably realistic graphics. Skyrim, for example, has by far been the most immersive game I've played in a long time, in part to the variety of voice actors but also to the realistic approach the graphics. It actually looks and feels like a mountainous northern country, unlike Oblivion which felt more like a Disney movie than anything.
[editline]16th November 2011[/editline]
In regards to gameplay, though, it is generally needless.
In my opinion, having a recognizable graphical style is more important than having graphical fidelity. Something like LoZ: Wind Waker or Okami. In addition to it being easily recognizable, I find it actually contributes a fair bit to my immersion when in a more graphically advanced game such as Fallout 3 when something ridiculous happens with the graphics, it totally shatters my immersion, whereas in a more stylized game, I find it actually vaguely amusing.
[QUOTE=cdr248;33303907]Graphics don't matter to much for me but Call of duty has looked exactly the same since 4 and I just think its bull shit that after 4 years the game still looks like ass. Call of duty 2 looks better than MW3.
[/QUOTE]
No, it really doesn't. You can hate the CoD series as much as you want but there's no arguing that it looks better than the first CoD games.
CoD:MW is where the line starts getting hazy.
[editline]17th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=brandonsh;33305319]After a while you don't even see the ASCII, all I see is blonde, brunette, redhead...[/QUOTE]
You see their hair colors?
All I see are farmers and masons.
I think it's important that we keep pushing the limits of how real games can look and what we can accomplish with them. Good graphics won't make a shitty game into a good game, but bad graphics can make an otherwise good game less enjoyable.
A lot of the reason for graphical stagnation recently is how old the current-gen consoles are getting. PC games aren't going to look any better so long as they're just ports of software designed to work on console hardware.
As has been touched on earlier, aesthetic is what makes a game look "good". Technical graphical capability only either aids the aesthetic or furthers realism. Personally I believe a distinct and purposeful style and artistic direction are the most important element of visuals. Other stuff like SSAO, AA, DX11 and what have you come second. The significance of the aesthetic in a game like Psychonauts is palpable, and I would argue that Psychonauts, a 2005 game, looks "better" than many games that have come out this year.
Which comes back to the fact that it depends on the game when you're talking about how important graphical "quality" is. Even then, you have to designate what graphical quality actually is, because you could be talking technically, artistically or in terms of realism. A game like Battlefield 3 looks "good" because the aesthetic is there and while it is designed to be realistic, there is still some artistic direction in order to convey certain emotional responses. If a game was designed purely to look realistic it would not necessarily look "good" in an aesthetic sense, only in a realistic sense.
Where a videogame is created to appeal to the player's senses, or actually serve a purpose beyond mindless entertainment, an aesthetic is the most important visual aspect.
It depends on the game, but overall graphics matter a lot less than actual gameplay or story, as long as the game doesn't look god awful I'm good.
[editline]16th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=cdr248;33303907]Graphics don't matter to much for me but Call of duty has looked exactly the same since 4 and I just think its bull shit that after 4 years the game still looks like ass. Call of duty 2 looks better than MW3.
I never liked ASCII graphics that much.[/QUOTE]
Okay no, COD2 looks like shit compared to MW3
Get off the bandwagon, think logically, think for yourself you mindless sheep.
Case closed. The graphics leave a lot to wish for, even for it's day, but goddamn if it wasn't immersive anyway.
[img]http://www.htbackdrops.com/v2/albums/userpics/11739/DeusExWallpaper.jpg[/img]
Graphics aren't that important, but you don't see me playing a 8 polygon model game.
[QUOTE=MitchvW;33312019]Graphics aren't that important, but you don't see me playing a 8 polygon model game.[/QUOTE]
A lot of people play minecraft.
Are you sure that first picture was MW3? Looks like Black Ops because of the silenced PSG sniper rifle.
Anyway, I think it depends on what game you are playing or planning on purchasing.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - As long as the graphics are visible people most likely won't care. Providing that we settle for the same graphics as MW2. Shouldn't be a problem. (I would say a good 75-80% buy CoD for the multiplayer aspect anyway)
Fallout - As far as I know, the graphics have never been too great but the gameplay has been. Therefore the gameplay would be outweighing the graphics.
Assassins Creed - Well, it's AC. We pretty much expect great graphics.
My point is, as long as the graphics aren't absolutely atrocious and the gameplay is far better and important, then not too many people will find the graphical quality [I]that[/I]important. Nice, smooth graphics are always a nice added bonus though.
I dont give a damn about graphics most of the time as long as it doesn't look like total ass for the time it was released
and what I mean by this is if a game comes out today that looks like half-life 1 then unless I hear raving reviews about it I'm likely to skip over it
[editline]17th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Terminutter;33303079]I honestly don't care about looks. I'll take gameplay over looks anytime.
Take Dwarf Fortress.
[IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HRCu35WfqcY/TG8tgi5vfcI/AAAAAAAAAUM/aG04HjnNPIo/s1600/Dwarf_Fortress_Ascii.png[/IMG]
This game is easily one of my top ten games, along with Skyrim, Deus Ex, Half Life and so on. It is insanely fun, even though it hasn't got good graphics.[/QUOTE]
ascii graphics do piss me off however
[QUOTE=cdr248;33303907]Graphics don't matter to much for me but Call of duty has looked exactly the same since 4 and I just think its bull shit that after 4 years the game still looks like ass. Call of duty 2 looks better than MW3.
I never liked ASCII graphics that much.[/QUOTE]
CoD 2 looks better than MW3? You sir, need glasses. Thought I'll agree all the modern warfare games look pretty much the same, but there is still noticeable difference.
God damnit, nobody ever brings up quake 2 when there's a thread like this.
Quake 2 is perfection in both graphics (for its time) and gameplay. It is a true classic first person shooter.
Now if we could only update the graphics and keep the exact same gameplay, we would have a new GOTY.
"Good" graphics? Yes. I'd rather not have lighting errors and missing textures crammed down my throat. "Realistic" graphics? Not necessarily.
OP:
Hell, no, look at games like Zelda: OOT, which is still the best game i ever played, the Half-Life games and Portal beeing on the 2nd place - also because of the story, not the graphics.
graphics are a necessary component of games IMO, gameplay is too though. I love RP games(except borderlands i couldn't really get into it for some reason) especially the elder scrolls games, Fable, and on occasion even DarkRP(yah, i went there, there's an occasional RP value on a proper server).
consistent graphics are necessary too though, there's a few low-res textures in skyrim that piss me off
I see what you mean about aesthetics compared to quality. However, in order to have a good aesthetic, you do need "good" graphics for it.
I mean, if textures aren't consistent, the game won't look good even if its style is unique.
That may not have been your point, but I understand what you mean by wondering if I meant "graphics" in the sense of realism, or the style in which the game is made.
TF2 looks great and isn't that "realistic", but the textures are still of high quality.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33295193][img]http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/igf/Minecraft/screenshot.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
He said 10, not 20
Graphics quality on most consoles and on a PC are okay, but the Wii graphics are starting to get really annoying.
I just got the new Zelda game, Skyward Sword. The game has an impressionistic art style, which would look really great, if it wasn't made on a console that can only handle 480p.
I tried playing it on my TV screen (40" and 1080p) and I stopped playing after 15 minutes because the bad quality seriously annoyed me.
I now have to resort to using an emulator to get decent graphics for this game.
So I'd say gameplay is still more important than graphics, but what use does gameplay have when you can't stand the horrible graphics?
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;33317149]I see what you mean about aesthetics compared to quality. However, in order to have a good aesthetic, you do need "good" graphics for it.
I mean, if textures aren't consistent, the game won't look good even if its style is unique.
That may not have been your point, but I understand what you mean by wondering if I meant "graphics" in the sense of realism, or the style in which the game is made.
TF2 looks great and isn't that "realistic", but the textures are still of high quality.[/QUOTE]
for me graphics -> looks.
realistic or not it's the looks of the game. That is important, Minecraft has good graphics because it has a good look, it's instantaneously recognised. MW3 has shit graphics compared to minecraft because it looks very un appealing to me, smack in the middle of the uncanny valley
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.