Graphics? Or variety?

I'm always dumbfounded when I hear someone say a game was bad because their graphics weren't on par with GTA IV or RE5, or Forza... whatever. Here's my beef:

If all the world of video gamers want is better graphics over the variety of gameplay then you might as well be telling the game developer to spend rigorous hours working on something that could look relatively realistic, when they'd rather be satisfied using a low poly render so they can add more features later on instead of using up all that wasted memory trying to create a perfect model. Take the game Prototype for example. It has DECENT graphics. Could they have been better? Of course! Would I have wanted it that way? Hell no. Caz I honestly think they'd be sacrificing a lot of the features they tossed into that game. They have the longest list of combination abilities for a character than I've ever seen in a video game. I don't think they could've achieved something like that with high rendered poly characters. Prototype is just an example. RE5... I wouldn't have cared if they kept the same level of renderization that they did for the gamecube... I think I know what it is. I think it's because as a kid growing up off of Goldeneye 007, RE, Jet Motto, and all the games that today would make you puke if you watched them, I know what it means to know a good game when I see one regardless of it's graphics. If it was good enough to get it's point across, then it was an awesome game, and an achievement for the developers. This whole bit about graphics and next generation might seem nice and all, but there are still great games out there that people are shunning because they're not on par with the major titles like Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4. I don't know. It bugs me. lol. Just thought I'd throw it out there and hear some responses.

I am almost entirely with you on this. I am just as much a retro gamer as i am a modern gamer owning a high end pc 360, ps3 and a wii with an ever expansing retro games collection (still haave snes atari and megadrive). I agree graphics arn't everything and value gameplay over graphics. But it's not a poor polygon count that i will class as bad graphics. It's lazyness in animation and glitchy clipping that annoys me and i think this can ruin a game.

The problem is that a good amount of gamers nowadays had their first taste with games during the PlayStation 2 time. They never played older games.tsduv21

This.
It really annoys me when in something like the legacy forums, you'll be talking about a random epic game (FF7 for example) and you'll get some little kid like 'LOL! THat gaem suckz cus itz got horribel grafics.'.
Seriously though, gaming was best in the 8-32 bit era. Alot more creativity than todays games, other than the odd exception.

It's a shame, but current (or "newer") gamers seem to look at graphics first, and gameplay second. I say we sit them down in front of a NES, SNES, Genesis (even PS1 and N64) so they can get a taste of what games used to be. Maybe even throw in a retro arcade as well.

I agree completely but graphics sell so I only hope with how there saying the PS3 and 360 will be around longer than 5 years that graphics slow down so developers can use them efficiently so games will come faster and with more variety

When people first play a game they look at the graphics. Understandable. It can help it be a better game. But it doesn't give it all the extra stuff that made the old games great. People are not focusing on making games like that, they want games that have great graphics. I disagree. They should make it a good game before adding unbelievable graphics.

OMFG you read my mind, i was playing prototype today, and i love it regardless of graphics. sure theyre a bit outdated but it doesnt change the game one bit, although the only thing i wish was in prototype was more citizen, vehicle, and building variety really youll see the same citizen walk right past each other just like in gta3, ive seen like 20 of the same vans lined up, nothing too important but it just would of been nice.

The people that I know who are real gamers (it's more than just a casual distraction to them) don't judge games on graphics. At least not anymore like they may have in high school and before. Graphics can still wow us but they most definitely don't make or break a game for us.

The problem is that a good amount of gamers nowadays had their first taste with games during the PlayStation 2 time. They never played older games.tsduv21

I personally dont care too much for graphics, if a game has good graphics, then great, but gameplay, Story, Music are more important

I've been playing since NES 1988, thats over 20 years of gaming... I've owned a game system of every gen (even an Atari Pong) and I've seen the progression of technology. As of now I payed for a expensive HD Tv and cables, Games last gen were $49.99 now $59.99 reason given to the press before release of current gen is "To cope with high production cost." and at the current cost of everything they better look absolutely amazing... Their video games (video as in VISUAL!!!) not board games. ---"This is the old carburetor vs fuel injection argument"--- The only limitations aren't graphics vs variety/gameplay it's COST and TIME vs everything else...YoungSinatra25

I do agree, however, I'm pretty sure that's not ALL that factors into creating a video game. For a standard developer maybe that's all they think about. However, developers that I've known for a long time, like Activizion, Naughty Dog, Atari, Capcom, and etc. (Those are just out of a hat), they've all made efforts to make a game that not only sells, but they've had personal enjoyment in its development, and praise their overall result. I say that a developing company that can look at the value of it's work over how Cost and Time factors into it's development is a company that's going to see long years of success ahead of itself. I know where your coming from regardless, Games like Turok, which were very fair in graphics, but resulted in blunt and repetitive gameplay was practically a rip off at $60.00. (Turok sucked in my opinion lol, and that's coming from someone whose played them all... off topic). So in tandem I think Cost and time play vital roles, but also variety over graphics, Seriously, I don't care if I'm running around as a stick figure, If they've developed some sort of unique system, implemented a world that gets it's point across, and has a story worth teling, then it's a game I will most definitely get. To be honest, I've always wondered if they were to recreate FFVII that they should shine it up a bit but keep it at the sprite level and expand the world. If you catch my drift lol. But who knows, money overrules everything these days.

I dont get games for graphics to be honest im not much on retro but one of my twofavorite games of all time is FFVII and ill still play it. I bought persona 4 when it came out on PS2 i have PS3 and a full HD TV but i bought it for persona

VarietySSBCguy

I dispute that, I'M AWESOME. You and I are at ends with eacother, we should have an awesome battle. =D

I dont get games for graphics to be honest im not much on retro but one of my twofavorite games of all time is FFVII and ill still play it. I bought persona 4 when it came out on PS2 i have PS3 and a full HD TV but i bought it for persona

Hanzoadam

Hey, more power to ya. I don't know a lot of gamers that buy consoles for specific games. :P But I do remember when I bought a 64 specifically for Starfox. I love Starfox... that is until they came out with Assault... what the hell were they thinking...

I am almost entirely with you on this. I am just as much a retro gamer as i am a modern gamer owning a high end pc 360, ps3 and a wii with an ever expansing retro games collection (still haave snes atari and megadrive). I agree graphics arn't everything and value gameplay over graphics. But it's not a poor polygon count that i will class as bad graphics. It's lazyness in animation and glitchy clipping that annoys me and i think this can ruin a game.

Xizle

I agree bro, If something going on that's not supposed to be going on then there is a problem. I usually let it slide if it's minor, but the thing I'm liking about the modernized video games is that it comes with patches. So if there is a problem and they hear about it, the can go in find it, and take care of it. Unfortunately they don't have this for our retro games. As much as we'd love to see some of those glitches fixed....

BTW... why haven't they remade a new Goldeneye... I'm not talking about rogue agent either. I'm talking about a completely revamped Goldeneye. That would be sick!