How do graphics make a game more fun?

  • 97 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by mems_1224 (46941 posts) -

Graphics can enhance an experience. For example, Dark Souls would probably be a good game if it didn't look and run like complete shit.

#52 Posted by SlimMilk (9 posts) -

@mems_1224: Yet the horrors in that game still scare me.

#53 Edited by jessejay420 (3768 posts) -

Do you need Awesome Graphics to make a Game fun?

OF COURSE NOT!!!

Just look at Minecraft and Angry Turds...Ugly as shit but enjoyed by MillIons!

Why? because its fun and addictive.

Do graphics enhance the Game play? Sure!

But if the Game play sucks then why even bother?

Its like a turd with sprinkles on top..its fvcking pointless!

So my point is,Game play is whats most important.

Graphics is just a Plus.

#54 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14021 posts) -

The gameplay experience is better. And if you're a PC gamer, having control of your field of view and resolution makes it easier to play.

#55 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4633 posts) -

thank you

Man, there are so many game changing advancements for PC gaming out right now, 144FPS gaming, 4k gaming, 3d gaming, VR gaming etc, it's crazy and I have no idea what I want to try first.

yeah man. 144 fps, i think its actually quite affordable. monitors which can do 4k60hz (via displayport 1.2) , the price has really come down, i've seen 'em here for $650 (ps4 launch price), which is similar to 1440p monitors. 3d and vr, well i am a little interested in vr but i'm in no hurry.

basically, i reckon if it was possible to get a monitor which does 4k 60 Hz, and can do 120 Hz at 1080p - that's the way to go. surely this is, or will become possible? closest to that i can think of is asus rog swift 1440p144 monitor - but she's a touch expensive.

and that's the problem with all those things, they cost money, and its really hard to predict your post-purchase enjoyment pre-purchase.

i chose 144 fps over 4k because when i had a 75 Hz monitor (~8 yrs ago), i felt that was a big enhancement over 60 Hz. also, back at school a kid endorsed 100+ fps gaming, and this is back when the year began with the number '1'. i thought about this a bit, i've experienced more and more pixels as time has gone by, but never more than 75 fps. did i really want to go the 4k route and spend 4x the gpu power on the same quality of render but at 4x the pixel count? or did i want to spend 2.4x the juice on getting 1080p 144 fps on all that shit?

i went with more fps because i am satisfied with 1080p, and I felt more frames would be truly different. it's awesome. no ragrets. if i'm settling, i settle for average 80 fps, max range ±40.

if someone thought 60 hz was more than enough but hated jaggies, then maybe that's a potential 4k gamer. or a gamer/(photoshopper or digital video editor, anything that needs pixel real estate).

anyway i hope this helps. good luck out there.

#56 Posted by mems_1224 (46941 posts) -

@slimmilk said:

@mems_1224: Yet the horrors in that game still scare me.

maybe you're just a pussy because there was nothing scary in that game.

#57 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11432 posts) -

@mems_1224

The mediocre gameplay was scary... :p

#58 Edited by parkurtommo (26744 posts) -

@mems_1224

The mediocre gameplay was scary... :p

#59 Posted by PapaTrop (820 posts) -

Better "graphics" can make more gameplay ideas possible.

But we're at a point where the diminishing returns are so great that there isn't really a way to provide more gameplay possibilities on consoles without changing the controller input. That's why there are so many games that still play like PS2-era games; there's only so much one can do with a basic controller.

#60 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11432 posts) -

@parkurtommo

set aside all the RPG Micromanaging crap aside and lets focus on the actual gameplay mechanics, they're nothing special.

#61 Posted by l34052 (3155 posts) -

Even last gen had 720p and 1080p games, all the lines are smooth, games aren't pixelated like pac-man and pong anymore. So tell me how do even better graphics which are barely noticeable at this point no matter how many p's a resolution is....how does that make a game more fun? Because actual gameplay mechanics haven't changed much if at all since the ps2 era.

Graphics aint everything no however they do help to bring you into the world theyre tryin to create.

Think of it like this, which would you prefer, playing GT5/6 looking the way they do or with graphics like Pole Position from back in the day or worse still Night Driving with its black screen and series of white dots denoting the track?....

#62 Posted by PS4hasNOgames (1483 posts) -

I'll be honest: games stopped being legitimately fun a few years ago for me. Now the only real factor I take in to play is immersion, which is why I really enjoy high fidelity open world games. Graphics are probably the most important aspect regarding immersion, so it certainly enhances my enjoyment of the game.

But graphics are tied in with gameplay, sometimes they are dependent on each other, the gameplay serves the presentation and the presentation serves the gameplay.

isn't it fucking pathetic that gameplay stopped being fun years ago? that satisfaction comes not from a a core gameplay mechanic but from a sort of simulated virtual reality experience. this makes the case for the wii u being the best console because pretty much all nintendo games are fun.

#63 Edited by Weird_Jerk (586 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames: Lol, I'm a PC gamer mostly, but I would seize up a little if Nintendo made some amazing high-fidelity games. A VR first-person LoZ? Or a 2.5D-enhanced-by-Oculus Mario game. Holy shit. Feasts for the eyes and fantastic, mindless fun (3DS simply isn't there yet). There are quite a few games with great graphics and mindless fun on PC already like Orion:Dino Horde, but the nostalgia of old Nintendo games really helps feed the fun, to be quite honest.

Relevant to your last post, I wouldn't say that it's "pathetic," but generally disappointing in graphics' current implementation on a 2D screen. The difference between the immersion 3D glasses on my plasma and the immersion of a fully-peripheral screen that sidesteps crappy single-display 3D deinterlacing is insane, whereas the improvement in graphics from 2007-2012 on a 2D display looks and feels far less significant. I wouldn't say that HMDs like OR are the final evolution of immersion, but it certainly brings a lot to the table. Despite all this, at the end of the day, I come back to play games because I find them fun. e.g. Planetside 2 smears Crysis 2/3 in every single way (even the technically worse graphics are more appealing).

#64 Edited by edwardecl (2226 posts) -

Increases in computer performance (including graphics) allow for more and different games to be made. For example...

You can argue what would 1080p 3D rendered version of pong add to the gameplay... well nothing.

But an open world game where you can do anything you want including playing the pong game within the game itself would add to the gameplay. Think of it as reducing the restrictions on what can be made instead of improving something.

#65 Posted by MiiiiV (403 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

@wolverine4262 said:

I need AT LEAST one thousand p's in all my games. BARE MIN GUISE

Look man, that's really the way it should be :S I play all my games at 1080p on a 3 year old card. It's less powerful than the cards in the PS4 (or maybe on par at most). It doesn't matter if I get unplayable framerates, if that happens I'll lower the settings, but never the resolution.

I think console gamers really don't understand the difference it makes to have 1080p over 720 or anything in between. Let alone 1440p or 4k.

I have a GTX 680 and I can't run Crysis, Crysis 2, or Farcry 3 at 1080p without sacrificing a decent fps count.

Hmmmm....

I had an oc'd gtx 580 (still not as powerful as a gtx 680) before I upgraded. And I had no trouble gaming at 1080p in those games you are mentioning.
Either your pc is has some bottlenecks, like cpu (Crysis 1 is very dependent on single core performance), bandwidth, ram or it has some other issues or you are speaking untruthfully.

#66 Edited by AzatiS (7508 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

@walloftruth said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@walloftruth said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

playing at 144 fps is incredible. everything feels unbelievably responsive, unbelievably smooth.

i wouldn't say its more fun but i'd say the fun which is already there feels enhanced.

Do you know if 144FPS on a 60Hertz monitor feels the same as 144FPS on a 144Hertz monitor?

other people have answered already, but *godverkut* i like talking to you, so prepare to receive a bunch of information for a second time:

basically, the 60 hz monitor will show 60 refreshes a second - max. if the gpu's at 120, you'll only see 60.

on a 144 Hz monitor you can see up to 144 refreshes a second. so if the gpu's at 60, you see 60. 120, you see 120.

but 200, you see 144. 150, you see 144.

another good thing about this monitor is (anecdotally i notice) less tearing at 'funny' frame rates, like 45 fps. but basically to answer your question directly 144 fps on a 60 hz monitor would likely "feel" like 60 hz.

Thank you, exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. And yes, I've just tried it on CS:GO, capping the framerate at 60FPS felt exactly the same way as capping the framerate at 144FPS did. So it seems a 144Hertz monitor is really needed to enjoy the smoothness you've been mentioning lately.

Man, there are so many game changing advancements for PC gaming out right now, 144FPS gaming, 4k gaming, 3d gaming, VR gaming etc, it's crazy and I have no idea what I want to try first.

You need a seriously powerful card to get 144 fps on anything remotely good looking. I guess it's kind of like how 4k is borderline impractical witht he current gpus.

In a few years, it might be easier.

Well sir , you dont have clue then ...

#67 Posted by AzatiS (7508 posts) -

Graphics do matter , depends the genre most of the time , and whoever says otherwise is either butthurt ( because he cant have those graphics for whatever reason ) or living in the past.

#68 Edited by bezza2011 (2408 posts) -

I wouldn't say it makes it more fun, but I've grown up since the days of the Amiga, Snes, Mega Drive, PS1, N64, Ps2, Xbox, 360, PS3, PS4,X1, I'm a forward thinking gamer and I'm also a mature gamer now, I've grown with the games and matured and so has my tastes, I'm at point where indie games are just rip offs of old style genre's with a better smoothness and for me i'm passed that, I want better graphics, I want realism, I want a great story.

I think PS3/360 pretty much nailed gameplay, I don't see much of a forward that gameplay can get much better, just animation and graphics, the more better graphics the more immersion in the game, I want to be pulled into the world, I want to believe in the world, I don't think it add's fun, but it makes it more believable and for me that's what I want out of games.

What I truly want is more human like Emotions from AI characters, Games always feel like I'm out to kill everyone and everything, I want a more natural and organic feel, I want to feel like there is a purpose for a killing, I want AI to feel the same way, take for example the last of us, killing clickers and screamers are one thing but then killing other humans just doesn't feel right, it also doesn't feel right that there are that many murderers out there grouping together, when i don't believe the world would be actually like that, there should be other ways round these situations than just gunning people down, that to me is what needs changing more than anything.

#69 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25137 posts) -

Graphics can make a game look more fun.

Metro Last Light

Planetside 2

Borderlands 2

Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag

Just some examples of what PhysX graphics can do to games. It's amazing.

but with that said, Graphics...don't make the game.

Minecraft, The Walking Dead, Terraria... Those aren't graphic marvels in gaming, but they are some of the most beloved games in gaming.

The Walking Dead even took some top honors in 2012 and put TellTale games on everyone's top tier developer lists.

Minecraft is THE biggest indie game of ALL time, and it's still innovating to this day, and it doesn't even look that impressive. With the right mods yeah, but that game isn't about the graphics, it's about what you can DO in the game. What you can build.

I'll go ahead and say this that Day Z, an Arma 2 mod (now going standalone), doesn't look at all impressive in terms of graphics, but GUESS WHAT'S BEEN IN THE TOP 10 SALE LIST ON STEAM ever since it got listed. It's not even a finished product yet, but it's there, in the top 10, everyday, on the hour, by the hour, the heck?

Another game LIKE DAYZ but also LIKE MINECRAFT is ONE OF THE TOP 10 PLAYING GAMES RIGHT NOW ON STEAM. It's called Unturned. Wow. Such Graphics. but People are playing it like crazy.

So bottom line is that Graphics don't make the game. They never did. They never will. But they do make the game look nice and pretty.

#70 Posted by clyde46 (45953 posts) -

@AzatiS said:

@parkurtommo said:

@walloftruth said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@walloftruth said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

playing at 144 fps is incredible. everything feels unbelievably responsive, unbelievably smooth.

i wouldn't say its more fun but i'd say the fun which is already there feels enhanced.

Do you know if 144FPS on a 60Hertz monitor feels the same as 144FPS on a 144Hertz monitor?

other people have answered already, but *godverkut* i like talking to you, so prepare to receive a bunch of information for a second time:

basically, the 60 hz monitor will show 60 refreshes a second - max. if the gpu's at 120, you'll only see 60.

on a 144 Hz monitor you can see up to 144 refreshes a second. so if the gpu's at 60, you see 60. 120, you see 120.

but 200, you see 144. 150, you see 144.

another good thing about this monitor is (anecdotally i notice) less tearing at 'funny' frame rates, like 45 fps. but basically to answer your question directly 144 fps on a 60 hz monitor would likely "feel" like 60 hz.

Thank you, exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. And yes, I've just tried it on CS:GO, capping the framerate at 60FPS felt exactly the same way as capping the framerate at 144FPS did. So it seems a 144Hertz monitor is really needed to enjoy the smoothness you've been mentioning lately.

Man, there are so many game changing advancements for PC gaming out right now, 144FPS gaming, 4k gaming, 3d gaming, VR gaming etc, it's crazy and I have no idea what I want to try first.

You need a seriously powerful card to get 144 fps on anything remotely good looking. I guess it's kind of like how 4k is borderline impractical witht he current gpus.

In a few years, it might be easier.

Well sir , you dont have clue then ...

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/his_radeon_r9_290x_hybrid_iceq_review,20.html

An OC'd 290X can't reach 144FPS even at 1080p in BF4.

#71 Posted by YearoftheSnake5 (7304 posts) -

As others have already said - immersion. One good example I can give is Resident Evil on PS and its remake on Gamecube. Aside from the obviously better voice acting and a couple tweaks with aiming, the GC version is the same game with supped up graphics. The enhanced visuals improve the game's atmosphere.

It varies from game to game, though. If it's a platformer, graphics may not matter so much, as gameplay focuses on precision rather than immersion.

#72 Posted by KungfuKitten (20963 posts) -

Boobs.

#73 Edited by hiphops_savior (7874 posts) -

You can't hide mediocre games behind shiny graphics. However, as Eurogamer wrote, "a great technological base is required to deliver world class gameplay"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-super-mario-3d-world

#74 Posted by MBirdy88 (8019 posts) -

"Barely noticeable at this point" .... yeesh.

This same stupid tired question is asked every generation.... if you really need it pointed out to you then get your head sorted.

Just because consoles generations are getting longer and less impressive does not mean there arn't large jumps.

#75 Posted by clone01 (24641 posts) -

They don't. Planescape Torement is better than Killzones, Last Of Us, Uncharted e.t.c.... Substance wins. Sadly, being a niche game, console gamers have never experienced substance before.

An incredibly sad tale.

Why don't you post a pic of your rig, jankarop?

#76 Edited by always_explicit (2762 posts) -

Seriously its all subjective, graphic are continuously improving with the release of evermore powerful tech. 1080p wars is only so important to a handful of consolites who know they are essentially stuck with the the same tech for potentially a decade. Your average PC owner could upgrade and improve performance fairly substantially every few years. I game on consoles because I prefer it. If high end graphics were of paramount importance to me I would be a pc gamer already.

Being a console owner and chasing graphical perfection is a waste of time. Your buying old technology before its even released.

#77 Posted by ominous_titan (606 posts) -

it adds to the immersion . i wish there was a greater emphasis on taking risks but its not going to happen games have been relatively the same since the ps2 era ,they just look prettier and have more online

#78 Posted by mjorh (738 posts) -

it doesn't period.

this is a video game and it only consists of UI's and right now its player count is at 17k, regularly peaking at 60k everyday. No graphics king will have this many players ever.

It ain't a videogame .....where's the "Video"? and "Numbers" don't make a "Gamer" .

+

About Graphics , it adds to the immersion and it matters a lot.

@kingtito said:

Immersion is what you make of it. It doesn't have anything to do with graphics. I wasn't any less immersed in games like WOW or Half-Life when they came out and neither were considered graphics kings of there time. Half life was decent but I wouldn't have been any less immersed if the graphics were anything less.

It's relative , at the time Half life was the graphics king so i don't think you can replay a game with lower graphics and feel the same immersion.

#79 Posted by SoftwareGeek (346 posts) -

OP trying to hide ps4's shortcomings after he hyped gfx for 2 years.

hahaha. I would plus 1 that a million times if i could.

#80 Posted by SoftwareGeek (346 posts) -

They make it more fun to look at. But even good looking games suck. Daisenryaku VII is a fun game with terrible graphics and sound. Much more fun than a lot of games I've played with much better graphics.

#81 Posted by kingtito (4903 posts) -

@mjorh said:

@strangeisland said:

it doesn't period.

this is a video game and it only consists of UI's and right now its player count is at 17k, regularly peaking at 60k everyday. No graphics king will have this many players ever.

It ain't a videogame .....where's the "Video"? and "Numbers" don't make a "Gamer" .

+

About Graphics , it adds to the immersion and it matters a lot.

@kingtito said:

Immersion is what you make of it. It doesn't have anything to do with graphics. I wasn't any less immersed in games like WOW or Half-Life when they came out and neither were considered graphics kings of there time. Half life was decent but I wouldn't have been any less immersed if the graphics were anything less.

It's relative , at the time Half life was the graphics king so i don't think you can replay a game with lower graphics and feel the same immersion.

We're not talking about HL2 so where was it said that HL1 was graphics king? System Shock 2 wasn't considered any kind of graphics king and I didn't feel any less immersed. Like I said, immersion is what you make of it. Graphics isn't going to give me any more immersion in a lot of games I've played. Game play and story will.

#82 Edited by PAL360 (26822 posts) -

Graphics are alot important on games that want to look realistic and immersive. 2D games, on the other hand, can look great with 8 and 16bit graphics.

That said, performance is always important. Every game, no matter the genre or format, should run at 1080p60, these days.

#83 Posted by dakan45 (18614 posts) -

it doesnt. It only makes the game prettier.

#84 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6469 posts) -

Oh Graphics.

I will say this. Graphics helps determine a first impression, but after the initial impression Graphics matter less and less the longer you play, atleast it feels like that for me.

Graphics can be used to enhance, or explain more of the player faster (a Picture can say alot), and the more detailed Picture, the more Things can be shown. Not to mention it can look a good deal more clear, which removes errors and such in the information the games tryied to portray.

The above rarely happens in games, since few games tryies to make the World around you portray anything real meaningful.

All in all Graphics matter less to me then good sound quality. And way less then good gameplay, I can even find it pointless in some games (in a series where the Graphics advances, but nothing really changes or enhances the series). But I have seen cases where good Graphics have helped, not just first impression but in the long run aswell. Requires alot of detail though.

#85 Posted by lamprey263 (23490 posts) -

How do graphics make a game more fun?

I dunno, why is making love to beautiful women more fun?

#86 Posted by Zelda187 (753 posts) -

All I know is that Crysis 3 on PC is the graphics king...and it fucking sucks.

I'm a PC gamer and I fully admit that.

Ryse is the best looking console game of all-time...and it fucking sucks.

Gameplay comes first and foremost. If a game has great gameplay, then great graphics are just the cherry on the top.

#87 Posted by Heil68 (43921 posts) -

I enjoy taking my time in games and looking at the work the artists do.

#88 Edited by Mr_Huggles_dog (944 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog: I max out Far Cry 3 on my GTX570 at around 30 fps. I dunno whats acceptable to you, but that card should definitely outperform mine.

What fps do you get and what type of CPU do you have?

#89 Posted by wolverine4262 (19230 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog: 25-30fps, AMD fx 8350. Had similar performance with my 8150. My GPU only has 1280mbs of VRAM too.

#90 Edited by bigblunt537 (6846 posts) -

@X_CAPCOM_X:

Because it's a more efficient way to make money!

#91 Edited by clyde46 (45953 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog: 25-30fps, AMD fx 8350. Had similar performance with my 8150. My GPU only has 1280mbs of VRAM too.

My 580 had problems with running that game.

#92 Posted by wolverine4262 (19230 posts) -
#93 Posted by Heirren (16826 posts) -

Am I the only person that looks upon graphics beyond the technical numbers? You've got to factor in much more than that. Color, shape, and even the quality of the display.

#94 Posted by Mr_Huggles_dog (944 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog: 25-30fps, AMD fx 8350. Had similar performance with my 8150. My GPU only has 1280mbs of VRAM too.

25fps is just not going to cut it with me. Yes I say some console games are fine at 30fps...but it's constant.

Thats not quite being honest when you claim how beast the PC is yet you're getting 25-30fps. I play with everything on but at 1600x900 and the lowest in certain areas is 45fps.

That to me is more than accpetable.

#95 Edited by AzatiS (7508 posts) -

@jessejay420 said:

Do you need Awesome Graphics to make a Game fun?

OF COURSE NOT!!!

Just look at Minecraft and Angry Turds...Ugly as shit but enjoyed by MillIons!

Why? because its fun and addictive.

Do graphics enhance the Game play? Sure!

But if the Game play sucks then why even bother?

Its like a turd with sprinkles on top..its fvcking pointless!

So my point is,Game play is whats most important.

Graphics is just a Plus.

Because depends the genre graphics are as important as gameplay or in some rare cases even more !!

Have you ever played an adventure ? Its all about story , puzzles and graphics ( in an artistic way but still ). Its just point and click but still some are phenomenals to play with.

Would Dead Space have been that scary and impressive with that atmosphere if graphics were like Minecrafts for example ? Naaah i dont think so.

So , graphics can be as important as gameplay depends the genre you playing. We all like impressive visuals in the end of the day.

#96 Posted by Gue1 (9741 posts) -

don't you enjoy the vistas when you're on a high place? Seeing and appreciate things is fun too.

#97 Edited by Dannystaples14 (957 posts) -

They don't. That being said a great game with good graphics is better than a great game with crap graphics. The problem is since about 2006 the graphics in games have been getting better and better and the quality of the games in general have been getting worse and worse. So currently all these people talking about how PC is so much better because the visuals are better are talking out of their ass because it doesn't matter how much better the games look, right now what we need are games that are fun again and not just pretty.

#98 Posted by DocSanchez (1587 posts) -

I don't have to choose between good graphics and good gameplay so I don't make mental gymnastics about how one is more important than the other. It's 2014 and I want both. Graphics add to the package like everything else.