• Is graphical quality important in video games?
    234 replies, posted
It is important, but story and gameplay beats it by far
Whatever helps the overall presentation. Let me put it this way. Take an older game like Far Cry, which was released in 2004 for those who don't know or don't remember. [img]http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/66828-far-cry-windows-screenshot-i-had-time-to-stop-and-admire-the.jpg[/img] Character models, weapons, vehicles, etc are not as detailed as they are in more modern shooters like Battlefield and Modern Warfare. However, Far Cry's use of after effects, a little dated as they may be, creates beautiful vistas and lush jungles that few other games can master even today. Even today, despite being visually dated, the game has enjoyable gameplay to go with excellent visuals, making it age well.
Graphics are important. Not in the sense that you should ignore a game for having bad graphics, but in the sense that insanely good graphics can literally save a game, not to mention helping it age better.
Graphical quality is the only thing little kiddies who buy games like the Call of Duty series care about, when every damn game is the same 50 weapons with little difference, rehashed singleplayer motions and goals, 50 billion killstreaks, what else? Do you think the young ones who buy these games on console go "the playability and controls of this game are awesome?" No.
[QUOTE=Rhodry;33584114]Graphical quality is the only thing little kiddies who buy games like the Call of Duty series care about, when every damn game is the same 50 weapons with little difference, rehashed singleplayer motions and goals, 50 billion killstreaks, what else? Do you think the young ones who buy these games on console go "the playability and controls of this game are awesome?" No.[/QUOTE] I completely disagree, for the reason that Call of Duty is not a very good looking game, and I think everyone realizes that. Also if anything it's a mix between playability/popularity that attracts people, from what I've seen
I've been playing a lot of New Vegas recently and it's kind of an oddball in this department. The graphics aren't really impressive, there's pop-in everywhere, it crashes a lot on fast travel (no biggie because it normally autosaves), the animations are stiff and robotic, there are glitching ragdolls EVERYWHERE, the AI walks over the recently-stabbed corpses of their allies without any reaction... it does everything it can to break the immersion but none of it really hampers the experience. I think it's because it's not trying to be realistic, it's always just trying to be a fun GAME. It knows what it is and it owns it. When you explode someone's skull in slow motion with a sledgehammer, you never even consider how gruesome and horrible the act is, because the game never convinces you that it's realistic. You just laugh and do it again. "you like the sight of your own bla"-SPLAT
a game like GTA V, it is important
I dont personally care about graphics over gameplay. If I enjoy the game, I dont give a jack shit if it has graphics from the 80s.
I think the "graphics vs. aesthetics" video is important. It's one of the main reasons I can still play Crash Bandicoot. The graphics suck, but the gameplay is good and the style is rock solid. Everything just fits together on the screen. The sequels only improved on that.
[QUOTE=DemonDog;33295638]I think the graphics [I]have[/I] to be good for it to be a good video game. That being said, I don't mean good as in photorealistic. Minecraft, for example, has good graphics because everything fits together and it all looks nice. This, meanwhile (on the topic of Minecraft), has absolutely horrid graphics because things just don't blend well and it looks awkward and shit. [img]http://thegamefanatics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/FortressCraft-Xbox-360.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Oh my God. I haven't been paying attention to the Xbox 360 release of Minecraft, but...Is that really what they're trying to do? If so, D: But I digress. I've always felt that immersion really falls on your own imagination. Having better graphics is [b]nice[/b] but it shouldn't be the selling point of a game. I would rather have a burger that tasted good, rather than looking good.
[QUOTE=KuramaBingyi;33598465]Oh my God. I haven't been paying attention to the Xbox 360 release of Minecraft, but...Is that really what they're trying to do? If so, D: [/QUOTE] No- the game in the picture is FortressCraft, a Minecraft spin-off/rip-off that's currently for sale in the Marketplace.
But there is only 1 true minecraft.
I would like to say that the legend of zelda skyword sword was one of the best looking games this year. It didn't have amazing graphics but it definitely made up for it with art style and animations.
Aesthetics makes or breaks the game, not graphics. Graphics are merely a sweetener to the aesthetic.
lets be honest who bought crysis for the plot
[QUOTE=dumbidiotretard;33616642]lets be honest who bought crysis for the plot[/QUOTE] I did.
[QUOTE=dumbidiotretard;33616642]lets be honest who bought crysis for the plot[/QUOTE] I bought it for mods and the single player, everything else was a bonus.
Answer is yes, but the question is not "how much graphical processing power the game uses", it's "how does the game uses the power in its disposal". That's why I judge graphics of a game based strictly on the overall look of things, not the amount of detail. Half-Life 1 looked excellent and it still does. I can't really judge games on just how they look like. The aesthetic feel of the game is as much contributed to by graphics design as well as sound design.
'Sup guys. Mirror's Edge. Pretty much an all-around beautiful game, but the one thing that [i]really[/i] stands out are its aesthetics. [video=youtube;c1gOBgLVgZo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1gOBgLVgZo[/video] So yeah. Graphics are important if they can be done right. Super-realism isn't as cool as people make them out to be, high-end rendering isn't all that important, what it comes down to is "does it work?" Mirror's Edge is one of those games that can do amazing graphics and make them work.
Graphics are certainly important to a game. The reason for this is immersing yourself into a virtual world. It can set a mood so in this aspect it is very important. Gameplay should always come first, but to say good graphics aren't important in the slightest is just dumb.
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;33639171]Graphics are certainly important to a game. The reason for this is immersing yourself into a virtual world. It can set a mood so in this aspect it is very important. Gameplay should always come first, but to say good graphics aren't important in the slightest is just dumb.[/QUOTE] Graphics aren't important in the slightest for some games. Dwarf Fortress is quite possibly the greatest game that I've ever played, and it has pseudo-ASCII (slight differences, it's not [i]true[/i] ASCII) graphics. Your imagination provides all of the graphics that you need. [url]http://gamers-core.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/dwarf_fortress_explication.png[/url]
Graphical quality is only important in games which rely on it
[QUOTE=dumbidiotretard;33616642]lets be honest who bought crysis for the plot[/QUOTE] Didn't buy it for the plot, but I bought it for the crazy-awesome gunfights. Few games can get me as pumped up as the singleplayer fights in Crysis. Then the fucking aliens showed up.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.