Why do some people only care about the graphics?

Graphics do have a big impact on a game, but overall, if the gameplay is great, then the whole game is great ;)

It's a key factor for me. But I would still play bc2 if it looked worse than it does.

You should ask this question in System Wars, what with all the annoying "Blah-blah is the new graphics king" topics popping up there...

Of course graphics isn't everything in a game, and gameplay should be considered first and foremost, but if the technology to create better and better graphics continues to advance, I don't see why developers shouldn't make use of it. They've been doing this ever since the first gaming system came out. It's pretty close-minded to think that gamers didn't care about graphics back then as they do now. There were some great games then, and undoubtedly their graphics were pretty mindblowing for their time. I don't see how it's any different now.

Because they never experienced the great 8/16-bit games where graphics didn't matter and games were judged on how fun they were. BonsaiMet

Back in those days there was talk about the number of colors onscreen, Mode 7, number of stereo channels, RAM, number of sprites onscreen, number of layers of parallax scrolling, whether or not a system was truly 16 bit (nods towards Turbographx) and last but not least 'blast processing'. Also, fmv games hit in big numbers inthe 16 bit era (and happily, died there).

There's a fine line really, graphics aren't all that matter but no-one wants to play a game with the graphics of an N64 or even Xbox and PS2 graphics if their playing on a this gen console. That's half the reason they bought the console, for the improvement. So while I don't necessarily need KZ2 graphics or UC2 graphics or the graphics Alan Wake is likely to have it is nice to have decent graphics, such as Assassin's Creed II, Final Fantasy XIII, Bad Company 2 etc. Obviously game play is a key factor and no-one wants a great polished game with terrible game-play, but the reality is most amazing graphical games don't have bad game-play anyway so it's really not an issue.

Also the reason people make a big deal about graphics sometimes is mainly because its easier to actually pinpoint graphic quality via processing engines and formatting and other things I don't understand ;), not to mention the way it actually looks. How do you really compare game-play? Unless one game just has terrible game-play how do you say one game had better game-play than another whereas graphics it is easier (not easy but easier) to decipher which game has the better graphics just by looking at it.

Graphics do have a big impact on a game, but overall, if the gameplay is great, then the whole game is great ;)

Venom_Raptor

[QUOTE="SupaKoopaTroopa"]

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.

GreySeal9

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.

Pretty well said.

[QUOTE="albatrossdrums"]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.SteveTabernacle

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.

Because they never experienced the great 8/16-bit games where graphics didn't matter and games were judged on how fun they were. BonsaiMet

Speaking as a gamer from that era, graphics did in fact matter back then. One of the big selling points of the NES when it came out was, in fact, the greatly advanced graphics. (compared to the other systems of the time) The SNES and Genesis, likewise, sold themselves primarily as graphics upgrades when they came out. Nintendo loved to talk about all the neat little graphics tricks they could get out of the SNES, Mode 7, and the FX chip enabled stuff.

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.

pengo93

Personally, I care more about the art style in the visuals than the graphics themselves. Yes, gameplay is always first, but a game can still look appealing to the eye even if it had N64 graphics.

Look at World of Warcraft. The graphics suck. Yes. However, I think it looks amazing. Why? The world looks amazing. There's lots of colours. The art design is amazing.

In my opinion, the visuals don't need to look like Crysis level, but they need to at least be appealing to look at. But then again, for me. Gameplay/Story/Multiplayer/Voice Acting >>>>>>>>>>> Music/Graphics/Art Style

Graphics in a video game are just the icing on the cake, really.

[QUOTE="Gr0wl"]

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

BuryMe

So yes.

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

[QUOTE="BonsaiMet"]Because they never experienced the great 8/16-bit games where graphics didn't matter and games were judged on how fun they were. SteveTabernacle

Speaking as a gamer from that era, graphics did in fact matter back then. One of the big selling points of the NES when it came out was, in fact, the greatly advanced graphics. (compared to the other systems of the time) The SNES and Genesis, likewise, sold themselves primarily as graphics upgrades when they came out. Nintendo loved to talk about all the neat little graphics tricks they could get out of the SNES, Mode 7, and the FX chip enabled stuff.

The only thing I care about in the game is the gameplay, fun factor and that it has good camera angles that is what's important. I mean you could have a game with the best graphics but the game can have terrible gameplay and awful camera angles.

Indeed. It's also annoying when people constantly want remakes of games that look more than fine in their original form. (usually people who didn't the games when they were first released and lack appreciation for older graphics)reifresca

I doubt that. Given the massive popularity of FF7 its likely those calling for a remake played the original.

[QUOTE="reifresca"]Indeed. It's also annoying when people constantly want remakes of games that look more than fine in their original form. (usually people who didn't the games when they were first released and lack appreciation for older graphics)CarnageHeart

I doubt that. Given the massive popularity of FF7 its likely those calling for a remake played the original.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="reifresca"]Indeed. It's also annoying when people constantly want remakes of games that look more than fine in their original form. (usually people who didn't the games when they were first released and lack appreciation for older graphics)SteveTabernacle

I doubt that. Given the massive popularity of FF7 its likely those calling for a remake played the original.

I strongly disagree. When FF7 hit, the graphics were incredible. Incredible not only by the modest standards of rpgs (which had in the cart days been forced to sacrifice graphic quality for length due to space considerations) but just by the standard of console games.

I believe the term is "graphic whore".

Everyone knows the storyline's where is at. :)

Story > gameplay >>>>> graphics

Wow. Another one of these topics. But surprise, there are actually a few people making sense here. Graphics and gameplay are pretty much inseparable. You can't really have a game that is all graphics and no gameplay: such a thing is actually known as a movie. Likewise, you can't have a game that is all gameplay and no graphics: such a thing is known as a blank screen.

The following quote is great:

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. …. 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.SteveTabernacle

The battle isn't graphics versus gameplay. It is low end graphics versus high end graphics. There may be some people out there who say they can only enjoy a game with high end graphics. That is not the same as saying that they like graphics more than gameplay. It just means they like high end graphics + good game more than they like low end graphics + good game. The fight is all about graphics. Gameplay is just a red herring.

I sort of understand that having a console that is incapable of producing high end graphics makes people defensive. But I don't understand why they need to attack graphics to make themselves feel better. People aren't playing a bunch of high end graphics games that suck and turning up their noses at a whole bunch of low end graphics games that are great. They are playing a bunch of high end graphics games that are great instead of a bunch of low end graphics games that are great. Are they losing out on some great games because they like high end graphics? Probably. But that's a personal choice and there are so many great games out there nowadays that no one can possibly play every great game made anyway.

Also, just had to say that the following quote is full of win:

Trying to act as if appreciating graphics is for dumb peasents while appreciating story and gameplay is some intellectual endeavor is pretty goofy.GreySeal9

Graphics have become a huge part of games this gen. So has online gaming.

I like graphics but if it has great gameplay its ok for it be below average. Plus a majority of gamers didn't come in till the n64 and ps1 era.

The way I see it its a process. Gameplay ideas will often require new tech > new tech offers new graphical techniques > new techniques allow better graphics and original style. So with regards to Crysis, the open world/realistic setting required them to create something more advance, which results in ball busting game engine and personaly one of my favourite FPS's.Games where graphics come first are backwards.