[QUOTE=Folgergeist;33317374]He said 10, not 20[/QUOTE]
More like 15.
I enjoy both but I think each has their respective place. If a game is incredibly fun and such, I'll play it no matter the graphics. Some games however just REQUIRE that certain graphical standard for me.
Saints Row is a good example. It's not a beautiful game but I don't expect it to be. It's just damn fun. Crysis on the other hand needs the graphics for me to enjoy it.
Graphics can be like icing on the cake. Sometimes the cake is really fucking nasty and the icing is the only thing giving it flavor.
Graphics aren't that important, I'd much rather have good gameplay than great graphics.
If you ever go and play Nethack that'll thoroughly convince you that gameplay means a lot more than graphics.
Good gameplay with good graphics are very good. For example, Battlefield 3.
I believe animation is more important than graphical quality, smooth animations make a big difference even on old 2d games.
I'd gladly sacrifice graphical quality for smoother animations or higher FPS.
Graphics isn't a linear thing like
Bad ------ Good
It's pretty diverse and thats why games like minecraft are pleasing to the eye despite their graphical quality, whereas some modern games have billions of polygons and look fucking horrible
its about design, and atmosphere that graphics assist with
Yes. Gameplay is more important, obviously, but graphical quality makes the game far more immersive (similar to a good soundtrack).
High graphical and technical quality also allows for new gameplay mechanics not possible / unwieldy with lower quality graphics, like Red Faction Guerilla's building demolition, or From Dust's water physics.
[QUOTE=Saber15;33338297]Yes. Gameplay is more important, obviously, but graphical quality makes the game far more immersive (similar to a good soundtrack).
High graphical and technical quality also allows for new gameplay mechanics not possible / unwieldy with lower quality graphics, like Red Faction Guerilla's building demolition, or From Dust's water physics.[/QUOTE]
Again, I raise Dwarf Fortress.
Take the saga of Boatmurdered, and tell me that the game isn't as immersive, if not more as graphically intense games.
[url]http://lparchive.org/Dwarf-Fortress-Boatmurdered/Introduction/[/url]
You can have immersion without graphics, it just requires some work at first, then you fall into the world.
Well really while changing your graphics resolution to 640x480 will give you 1000 frames per second, your playing wont be that great now wont it. Graphics are definately a determining factor for a game nowadays, but it's not the only one. I just feel kinda derp when graphics are the first thing people mention in a game. Like when someone expresses their dislike of a game, if the first thing they say is "the graphics are so shit" I think 'wow everything else must be completely useless now that the graphics suck". To compare, the graphics on a game is how beautiful a woman is, but then again she could be a total bitch.
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;33293796]Modern Warfare 3 (2011)
[t]https://forums.playfire.com/_proxy/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fscrawlfx.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FCall-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-3_2011_05-13-11_002.png_600.jpg&hmac=4037fe71b7abfab5945187b06e82b09c[/t][/QUOTE]
MW3 has the PSG-1? Fuck yea
[QUOTE=Terminutter;33340297]Again, I raise Dwarf Fortress.
Take the saga of Boatmurdered, and tell me that the game isn't as immersive, if not more as graphically intense games.
[url]http://lparchive.org/Dwarf-Fortress-Boatmurdered/Introduction/[/url]
You can have immersion without graphics, it just requires some work at first, then you fall into the world.[/QUOTE]
That's at the extreme end of the spectrum though. If you were to compare two RPGs with similar levels of writing and the like, the one with the better graphics is likely going to be more immersive.
[QUOTE=sharky.;33342848]
MW3 has the PSG-1? Fuck yea[/QUOTE]
Thought that pic was blops, as that had the PSG-1, too. Shows how much work's put into it. Good thing I stopped buying (and playing) them ages ago.
[QUOTE=Saber15;33342877]That's at the extreme end of the spectrum though. If you were to compare two RPGs with similar levels of writing and the like, the one with the better graphics is likely going to be more immersive.[/QUOTE]
I'm still not too convinced, I'd say that Morrowind is more immersive than Oblivion, though Skyrim takes the cake with immersiveness. (immersivity?)
No.
Gameplay is always the most important thing for me regardless of what it looks like (I.E Dwarf Fortress, Morrowind, Doom, etc)
In my opinion graphical quality doesn't depend on resolution or polycount but on art direction, atmosphere and such.
[editline]20th November 2011[/editline]
As an example I think Rayman 3 looks awesome still.
[IMG]http://www.futuregamez.net/ps2games/rayman3/rayman34.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Eric95;33348566]In my opinion graphical quality doesn't depend on resolution or polycount but on art direction, atmosphere and such.
[editline]20th November 2011[/editline]
As an example I think Rayman 3 looks awesome still.
[IMG]http://www.futuregamez.net/ps2games/rayman3/rayman34.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
While it looks ok, it would look so much better with higher polycount and textures.
yes but you can still achieve incredibly good looking games with a low poly count. It's not necessary to have a top of the line engine to make a game look good.
[img]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/121/1211675/voxatron-will-assimilate-you-20111104015446111_640w.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.armchairempire.com/images/previews/multi-platform/geometry-wars-galaxies/geometry-wars-galaxies-3.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.vgchartz.com/games/pics/603060aaa.jpg[/img]
[img]http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2010/08/Team-Fortress-2-Interview-02.jpg[/img]
all of these games are nowhere near as advanced in poly count and texture resolution compared to crysis 2 and BF3 but they do have artistic direction, the distinct style of these games make them look good, not the lighting, not the poly count but the colours and enviroment. That's what graphics are to me. When people say "Evil Genius has bad graphics look at how low resolution the textures are and how low poly the people are" I think, no, it has good graphics but it is unrealistic.
Even though I own a powerful pc I mainly care about art style more then graphics. It might just be because I have bad eyesight but I never really cared about graphics that much.
It's production more than anything. Just because a game doesn't use the latest graphic technologies doesn't mean it has to look bad; that's really up to the artists. Some games do push graphics as a major feature though.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33348904]While it looks ok, it would look so much better with higher polycount and textures.[/QUOTE]
I really don't think rayman is a game that would benefit from a higher polycount or textures.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;33353039]I really don't think rayman is a game that would benefit from a higher polycount or textures.[/QUOTE]
It would. See these round glowing things? See that tree? The mushrooms? They would all look 100% better if they were actually round. I can tell the blockyness was not intentional.
And higher res textures would look so much better too. Instead of low res blurry plank, you'd get good and sharp plank.
It would not look different, just better.
People are misunderstanding that more polies = real. It does not. In any game, be it tf2 or crysis, you can never have too many polies. All these round things that are no longer round because of limited resources? Yeah they look ugly. And the blurry textures(more for old games), yeah they look ugly too.
There is a difference between an art direction and a technical limitation. You can keep the style even if you have no technical limits. It does not magically force you to make realistic looking games.
Want to make a cartoony game? No problem. Just take a tablet and paint the textures. The difference will be that now your ball looks nice and round, your trees look like trees, the leaves can be real meshes instead of alpha planes. If anything, all that detail only adds to the immersive look.
[editline]20th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Splarg!;33352830]It's production more than anything. Just because a game doesn't use the latest graphic technologies doesn't mean it has to look bad; that's really up to the artists. Some games do push graphics as a major feature though.[/QUOTE]
Depends on how old the hardware is. The pixelated look might fit for games that try to be pixelated, but for most 3d games (except MC and some "classic" wannabees) the blurry texturing and unround things show up quite a lot.
I really don't understand how you can be against more polies. If anything, we could have smooth curved surfaces, which would allow even more artistic styles and not look like ass.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33353523]I really don't understand how you can be against more polies. If anything, we could have smooth curved surfaces, which would allow even more artistic styles and not look like ass.[/QUOTE]
I like playing my games in over 10 fps so I don't care if thee polycount is low.
[QUOTE=Eric95;33354727]I like playing my games in over 10 fps so I don't care if thee polycount is low.[/QUOTE]I like playing my games in over 60 fps because my system is up to date.
Graphics are easy to see... The gameplay is really what matters. Think If Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde on NES had the same graphics as MW3 and BF3
[QUOTE=Eric95;33348566]
[IMG]http://www.futuregamez.net/ps2games/rayman3/rayman34.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
That picture reminds me of Eyeaduct.
As long as I see what I'm going I don't really care.
In adventure games, I prefer good graphics. Or at least a good atmosphere. Both of them are connected in a way so to speak.
OP, thats not MW3. That's black ops.
I think that a game should indeed concentrate on good graphics, as long as they don't sacrifice anything else.
For example, I'd rather have a game with good graphics and good gameplay, instead of great graphics and boring gameplay and no interest. A good example of this is Crysis 2.
I Don't really care about graphics.
As long as the gameplays good. Im fine
I'd rather have a decent looking game, simple graphics but with TONS of content and rather than wasting space/time making the graphics look sexy, i'd rather have game features.
[QUOTE=Goodthief;33350122]yes but you can still achieve incredibly good looking games with a low poly count. It's not necessary to have a top of the line engine to make a game look good.
[img]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/121/1211675/voxatron-will-assimilate-you-20111104015446111_640w.jpg[/img]
all of these games are nowhere near as advanced in poly count and texture resolution compared to crysis 2 and BF3 but they do have artistic direction, the distinct style of these games make them look good, not the lighting, not the poly count but the colours and enviroment. That's what graphics are to me. When people say "Evil Genius has bad graphics look at how low resolution the textures are and how low poly the people are" I think, no, it has good graphics but it is unrealistic.[/QUOTE]
uhh that dragon has a whole voxel for each block, it actually has more graphical data than a lot of normal models if you think about it in that context
looks beautiful though what game is it
[QUOTE=Kwaq;33356623]uhh that dragon has a whole voxel for each block, it actually has more graphical data than a lot of normal models if you think about it in that context
looks beautiful though what game is it[/QUOTE]
Voxatron.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.