Why do some people only care about the graphics?

Has anyone else heard this? Some people say "Oh that game fails! The graphics suck!" It's not all that matters. It's the game play that matters! Who else agrees?SuperJae1

Well, I don't think i've heard that, but it certainly happens. I also think that most gamers go through a phase where graphics are a key factor. You show a kid a dirty marple and a shiny one, and he's bound to go for the shiny one. Gameplay should come first, but take a 3D adventure game such as Uncharted. What is the point of adventure? To see new things. So part of the experience is seeing these lush otherworldly environments. Visuals in a sense ARE part of the gameplay, on a genre specific basis. I know I went through that phase with the ps1 and the N64. Had a hard time deciding which one to get. Nintendo has these games, I've rented a playstation and I like these games for it, but I assumed that the Nintendo, being newer, would be better graphically on all fronts. So, I bought the N64 on day one. Thought the games looked absolutely beautiful--they drew you into soemthing you had never seen or played before. I eventually got a ps1 and realized that it actually did a number of things better, despite being older. Nowadays graphics mean NOTHING to me. REally, I could care less--to the point where I see no difference. I recognise a good looking game, but it is not a deciding factor. Going back to my fave ps1/n64 games--they all have good gameplay--some with great graphics, some with terrible.

The graphics are an intergral part of gaming nowadays, especially in open world rpgs and the like, but it's not what all of it's about. A lot of gamers, me included have boxes for tvs so graphics aren't as important.

Well , simply because the graphics are important . For example , would you have played Batman Arkham Asylum with the graphics of Mario ?

Well , simply because the graphics are important . For example , would you have played Batman Arkham Asylum with the graphics of Mario ?

Gr0wl

And a lot of fanboys would be pissed if Mario had the graphics of Arkham Asylum.

Just imagine what would happen if Mario suddenly became BatMario , bigger , better , smarter .

Has anyone else heard this? Some people say "Oh that game fails! The graphics suck!" It's not all that matters. It's the game play that matters! Who else agrees?SuperJae1

Thank you! I hate how some people only go for games that have fancy graphics. grahics don't make the game, gameplay does. Also is anyone else sick of gamers that only play M rated games? It's likethey think they're so mature just because they're playing games with a lot of blood and gore.

It's called quality, usually great gameplay and graphics usually go hand in hand. I've honestly never met a gamer who cares solely about graphics only and not how fun a game is.

I don't know, and it bugs the hell out of me.

Movies exist for a reason. If you want good graphics, watch Avatar. Games are for PLAYING. A game can never really fail because its grapohics aren't up to par.

Well, simply because the graphics are important . For example , would you have played Batman Arkham Asylum with the graphics of Mario ?

Gr0wl

So yes.

But I have no interest in Arkham Asylum, good graphics or not.

I quite hilarious actually. Seeing as most of the time the people who are complaining are playing on consoles. In which the graphics arn't nearly as good. Fact is gameplay > graphics. A game can look great but if the gameplay sucks there is no point in playing it.

I don't know, and it bugs the hell out of me.

Movies exist for a reason. If you want good graphics, watch Avatar. Games are for PLAYING. A game can never really fail because its grapohics aren't up to par.

BuryMe

They are called VIDEO GAMES.

That means they are for PLAYING+WATCHING. So there is nothing wrong with expecting good visuals from a game.

And yes, a game that looks like crap can be a failure, given that it is ugly enough.

Graphics are important, but not as important as some people make them. Gameplay should always beat out graphics, as a rule. Otherwise, you may have a game that is good on the eyes, but frustrating as hell to play, making the good graphics a moot point in the end.Cube_of_MooN

I think that works both ways though.

If a game has amazing gameplay, but is ugly as hell or looks bland to the point that its world is not fun of pleasent to be in, the game mechanics become hollow. I don't play a game for the game mechanics solely as that is a robotic, empty experience. I play a game for the entire experience.

IMO, gameplay and graphics work hand in hand.

Honestly TC, I have no idea. To some people graphics seems to be the end all be all of a game, which leads me to belive they really never you know... play the games...

I have nothign against graphics, but to claim that ygo hand in hand with gameplay is just wrong on so many levels I would not know where to begin.

Graphics sole purpose is to relay what happens in the game to a person, better graphics does not automaticly relay things better, not do graphics have any influence in gameplay at all (psysics are part of the gameplay not the graphics, which is pretty much visuels only).

I often find myself not noticing a games graphics 10 minutes after I start playing it, my brain does not stop to think "gee that is some nice graphics", so I do not even register how graphics are in most cases, Am I playing a game from 2004 or one now, I barely notice anything at all.

Gameplay is ALWAYS the single most important part of a game, if it is not fun, it is simply not a good game and it can be fulgy as phuck.

It is not the same thing the other way, I can find oceans of enjoyment of games from the 80s or start 90s ,I still find UFO - Defence and Syndicate some of the best games ever created, I still enjoy Super Mario Bros 3, and River cityransom as awesome as I did way back.

heck I can enjoy roguelikes, (and they are pretty much just letters moving around on a screen).

I am quite sure the people who are so up in arms about the graphics, are those people who never notices that some popular games are really bad, or fundementily broken.

The best thing would be if both were really good in a game (well all 3, I consider sound to be atleast as important as graphics).

But time and time again it has been shown that the more time devs spend on thier graphics, the less they spend on story and gameplay elements, which shows in modern games being really short, or as innovative as a slice of bread.

Maddie_Larkin

Maybe you don't think that graphics+gameplay go hand in hand, but other people do. So to call the opinion that they do go hand in hand wrong on so many levels doesn't make sense. In fact, I'd say that the majority of gamers probably expect a combination of good graphics and good gameplay as a game is the product of many different elements, not just "gameplay."

If I play a game for an "experience", I expect the game world to be pleasing and fun to be immersed in. That makes good visuals neccessary. To me, gameplay elements are hollow and robotic without an immersive, visual pleasing world to give them context.

Maybe you don't take the time to notice graphics, but others do, especially people who like to explore game worlds.

Well graphics are quite important because they are going to be the very first thing that will draw most people in so if they don't do that then in a sense the game has 'failed'. Regardless though I don't know why these kinds of topics come up so often since from my experience most games with excellent graphics also have at least good gameplay, it's not like we're wading in a sea of great looking games that play poorly.

because they aren't real gamers

[QUOTE="Cube_of_MooN"]Graphics are important, but not as important as some people make them. Gameplay should always beat out graphics, as a rule. Otherwise, you may have a game that is good on the eyes, but frustrating as hell to play, making the good graphics a moot point in the end.GreySeal9

I think that works both ways though.

If a game has amazing gameplay, but is ugly as hell or looks bland to the point that its world is not fun of pleasent to be in, the game mechanics become hollow. I don't play a game for the game mechanics solely as that is a robotic, empty experience. I play a game for the entire experience.

IMO, gameplay and graphics work hand in hand.

I totaly agree when I dont get why do people care

[QUOTE="SuperJae1"]Has anyone else heard this? Some people say "Oh that game fails! The graphics suck!" It's not all that matters. It's the game play that matters! Who else agrees?Demonjoe93

Thank you! I hate how some people only go for games that have fancy graphics. grahics don't make the game, gameplay does. Also is anyone else sick of gamers that only play M rated games? It's likethey think they're so mature just because they're playing games with a lot of blood and gore.

YES! This generation seems to be full of that, too. Gears of War is NOT mature, it is more along the lines of being grotesque. Mario is more mature than GoW, imo. I know most people will think that isn't the case, but Mario is filled with timeless character designs and an amazing color palette--it has an artistic feel to it. Gears on the other hand, just has humans with guns.

YES! This generation seems to be full of that, too. Gears of War is NOT mature, it is more along the lines of being grotesque. Mario is more mature than GoW, imo. I know most people will think that isn't the case, but Mario is filled with timeless character designs and an amazing color palette--it has an artistic feel to it. Gears on the other hand, just has humans with guns.Heirren

Yeah, but I also think some gamers are just as annoying when they say graphics are not as important at all. Graphics are a fundamental part of gaming - they are how you see and experience the gaming world. So of course graphics are important to an extent. This doesn't mean games are only good if they have cutting edge graphics, but honestly I see posts complaining about "graphics whores" almost as much as I see complaints about graphics.albatrossdrums

I agree wholeheartedly. The continuing trend to try to create a riff between graphics and gameplay, and make people believe they cannot have a game that excels in one without falling short in the other, is absolute nonsense. It has no basis in reality. Even on the Wii, the best games of each year tend to also be one of the most graphically proficient. Truly great games excel in both graphics and gameplay. I tend to see more posts bemoaning people who only care about graphics, than I do actual posts from people who actually only care about graphics. Sort of like how every other post about Halo is about how overrated it is, yet every person who posts about that still feels the bizzare need to have "Am I the only one who doesn't like Halo?" as the thread title. Mind boggling stuff.

usually whengame's graphics are garbage it means the games arecrap and is a low budget title

but some times a game with bad ass graphics is horrible. hmmm?

people want to feel and see that they are buying a quality gameinstead of hoping to F-ing god that the game is good.

a game that no one liked maybe because the graphics weren't awesome was WET that game was pretty cool

Depends on the game. I have games on the Wii's VC that I love. It don't matter if the graphics are old.

On the other hand, there are some games that just calls for updated graphics. One of them is Flight Simulator, the series which dates back from the 80's.

History of Flight Simulator

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

[QUOTE="SuperJae1"]Has anyone else heard this? Some people say "Oh that game fails! The graphics suck!" It's not all that matters. It's the game play that matters! Who else agrees?Heirren

Thank you! I hate how some people only go for games that have fancy graphics. grahics don't make the game, gameplay does. Also is anyone else sick of gamers that only play M rated games? It's likethey think they're so mature just because they're playing games with a lot of blood and gore.

YES! This generation seems to be full of that, too. Gears of War is NOT mature, it is more along the lines of being grotesque. Mario is more mature than GoW, imo. I know most people will think that isn't the case, but Mario is filled with timeless character designs and an amazing color palette--it has an artistic feel to it. Gears on the other hand, just has humans with guns.

Ever since Nintendo set up the false dichotomy between graphics and gameplay certain people have taken it upon themselves to post said argument every month or so in the GGD. They set up their threads by ranting about nonexistent people who focus only on graphics and ignore gameplay.

Gears of War isn't just humans with guns, you play as a human going up against non-humans (kind of like Mario :P ). There's nothing wrong with being one of those people who can't get enough Mario (200 games isn't enough) and is not interested in other types of games, but why make baseless attacks on non-Mario games?

I consider that people who care about the graphics more than the gameplay are not true gamers.psyche15

Pro-Debate Tip- Whenever you have to label an action as necessary or as a disqualifier for being a "true" something, you have probably gone nuts.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

Thank you! I hate how some people only go for games that have fancy graphics. grahics don't make the game, gameplay does. Also is anyone else sick of gamers that only play M rated games? It's likethey think they're so mature just because they're playing games with a lot of blood and gore.

CarnageHeart

YES! This generation seems to be full of that, too. Gears of War is NOT mature, it is more along the lines of being grotesque. Mario is more mature than GoW, imo. I know most people will think that isn't the case, but Mario is filled with timeless character designs and an amazing color palette--it has an artistic feel to it. Gears on the other hand, just has humans with guns.

Ever since Nintendo set up the false dichotomy between graphics and gameplay certain people have taken it upon themselves to post said argument every month or so in the GGD. They set up their threads by ranting about nonexistent people who focus only on graphics and ignore gameplay.

Gears of War isn't just humans with guns, you play as a human going up against non-humans (kind of like Mario :P ). There's nothing wrong with being one of those people who can't get enough Mario (200 games isn't enough) and is not interested in other types of games, but why make baseless attacks on non-Mario games?

I'm not bashing Gears as a game. Mario, like great peices of art, has stood the test of time among multiple generations. There's something about its visual design that appeals to the mass majority of people, not only gamers.

Graphics are important, but they are nothing without gameplay.

It goes the other way too. Think Killzone 2.

I cant play system shock 2 because of how it looks,

dont get anything out of it,even though it would probably become one

of my favorites had i played it upon its release and not in 2010.

Graphics are important, but they are nothing without gameplay.

It goes the other way too. Think Killzone 2.

I cant play system shock 2 because of how it looks,

dont get anything out of it,even though it would probably become one

of my favorites had i played it upon its release and not in 2010.

depend3ncy

That's a rather good point. I've had similar experiences to that, but I've also shown Twisted Metal 2 to people that have never before used an original playstation, and they all agree it is the best car combat game ever made--choppy visuals and all.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

YES! This generation seems to be full of that, too. Gears of War is NOT mature, it is more along the lines of being grotesque. Mario is more mature than GoW, imo. I know most people will think that isn't the case, but Mario is filled with timeless character designs and an amazing color palette--it has an artistic feel to it. Gears on the other hand, just has humans with guns.

Heirren

Ever since Nintendo set up the false dichotomy between graphics and gameplay certain people have taken it upon themselves to post said argument every month or so in the GGD. They set up their threads by ranting about nonexistent people who focus only on graphics and ignore gameplay.

Gears of War isn't just humans with guns, you play as a human going up against non-humans (kind of like Mario :P ). There's nothing wrong with being one of those people who can't get enough Mario (200 games isn't enough) and is not interested in other types of games, but why make baseless attacks on non-Mario games?

I'm not bashing Gears as a game. Mario, like great peices of art, has stood the test of time among multiple generations. There's something about its visual design that appeals to the mass majority of people, not only gamers.

You claimed Gears was just humans with guns, which it never has been.

How can one decide that something appeals to people who don't buy it? Also, even among Wii owners, only a minority have bought any given Mario game.

On a related note, Nintendo itself has repeatedly stated that its success is from casual games such as Wii Fit and Wii Sports not core games such as Mario.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Ever since Nintendo set up the false dichotomy between graphics and gameplay certain people have taken it upon themselves to post said argument every month or so in the GGD. They set up their threads by ranting about nonexistent people who focus only on graphics and ignore gameplay.

Gears of War isn't just humans with guns, you play as a human going up against non-humans (kind of like Mario :P ). There's nothing wrong with being one of those people who can't get enough Mario (200 games isn't enough) and is not interested in other types of games, but why make baseless attacks on non-Mario games?

CarnageHeart

I'm not bashing Gears as a game. Mario, like great peices of art, has stood the test of time among multiple generations. There's something about its visual design that appeals to the mass majority of people, not only gamers.

You claimed Gears was just humans with guns, which it never has been.

How can one decide that something appeals to people who don't buy it? Also, even among Wii owners, only a minority have bought any given Mario game.

On a related note, Nintendo itself has repeatedly stated that its success is from casual games such as Wii Fit and Wii Sports not core games such as Mario.

Because my 80 year old grandmother, who has never touched a videogame in her life, knows who mario is.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

I'm not bashing Gears as a game. Mario, like great peices of art, has stood the test of time among multiple generations. There's something about its visual design that appeals to the mass majority of people, not only gamers.

Heirren

You claimed Gears was just humans with guns, which it never has been.

How can one decide that something appeals to people who don't buy it? Also, even among Wii owners, only a minority have bought any given Mario game.

On a related note, Nintendo itself has repeatedly stated that its success is from casual games such as Wii Fit and Wii Sports not core games such as Mario.

Because my 80 year old grandmother, who has never touched a videogame in her life, knows who mario is.

Being able to identify something and liking it are two different things.

Personally i could care less about graphics, sure they look pretty but thats where it ends. The more graphics they pump into a game the less game you get. Hell, i still go back to the good ole nes just to play some of the best games that defined the industry today such as Ninja Gaiden1,2,3, Final Fantasy, and a whole list of others. The ones that are for a lack of better words Addicted to top knotch graphics are the problem with the industry today. They feed the press with the rediculous reviews of how great the graphics are which in turn will eventually cause the industry to collapse on itself. And yes before anyone starts the flaming controls and such are a key factor however, there are many games that look outstanding however the controls and concepts for it are just horrid.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

You claimed Gears was just humans with guns, which it never has been.

How can one decide that something appeals to people who don't buy it? Also, even among Wii owners, only a minority have bought any given Mario game.

On a related note, Nintendo itself has repeatedly stated that its success is from casual games such as Wii Fit and Wii Sports not core games such as Mario.

CarnageHeart

Because my 80 year old grandmother, who has never touched a videogame in her life, knows who mario is.

Being able to identify something and liking it are two different things.

Liking it doesn't always matter. I realize I'm not being that clear, but Mario is popular, not only because of the gameplay, but also due to traits inherent in his design. The whole package is beautifully crafted. You think Gears of War will be around for 20 years?

Why have I heard this same question be asked a million times in the past 10 years?

Obvious people like teh graphix because they like seeing how far technology is progressing. If a game doesn't have up to date graphics, people think the game developers didn't put a lot of effort into it.

A lot of people are too stupid to comprehend a good story and game play, because today's society fails.

Why have I heard this same question be asked a million times in the past 10 years?

Obvious people like teh graphix because they like seeing how far technology is progressing. If a game doesn't have up to date graphics, people think the game developers didn't put a lot of effort into it.

A lot of people are too stupid to comprehend a good story and game play, because today's society fails.

SupaKoopaTroopa

This comment is pretty damn smug.

Gameplay doesn't really take much intelligence to comprehend. It is hardly rocket science. Most games hinge on pretty simple mechanics.

A good story may take more intelligence to comprehend, but that depends on the story itself and not stories in general.

Trying to act as if appreciating graphics is for dumb peasents while appreciating story and gameplay is some intellectual endeavor is pretty goofy.

I think today people are just spoiled by it..

everyone expects high def, high quality images these days, it's only natural for people to want that, we're in a age that everyone wants high quality

notice alot of casual gamers don't play the old time classic games, probably because the "graphics" suck :\

Personally i could care less about graphics, sure they look pretty but thats where it ends. The more graphics they pump into a game the less game you get.blur256

[QUOTE="blur256"]Personally i could care less about graphics, sure they look pretty but thats where it ends. The more graphics they pump into a game the less game you get.SteveTabernacle

+1

This is a difficult subject with many opinions of both sides. Personally, graphics are not important to my enjoyment of a video game, merely because I look for longevity, a good story and of course genre specifics.

However, with games now coming to the attention of the mainstream, the label of "art" around videogames is sparking discussions. Many assume that art has to look nice, to be Aesthetically pleasing, which you could argue is true. However, art is also about emotion, how it plays with you, what it does to you, not just how it looks. Of course, with the broadening of the industry to casual gamers, graphics have become perhaps less of an issue, as these gamers want a quick thrill or burst of enjoyment, regardless of what it looks like. On the reverse, hardcore gamers who play action games or bigger RPGs love to see an explosion of colour or a brilliantly rendered city, it is, intrinsically, pleasing to us.

On the whole, as long as you are not simply a "graphics whore" AKA someone who JUST looks at graphics, games should aim to be as graphically pleasing as possible BUT they should never do this at the expense of other, more important areas of game creation, for example the storytelling or gameplay itself.

As graphics have advanced, computer games have become more accessible to those without fully developed imaginations.

EM

A game wouldn't be a "video game" unless there were graphics. They don't have to be the central focus of the game, but they definitely need to be up-to-date and of high fidelity (i.e. stable framerate). I am a "graphics whore" by definition (because I prefer games to have very good graphics), but I also want games to complete in other ways as well: i.e. story, gameplay, music, etc.