Why does anybody care about graphics anymore?

I see people write reviews and complain about graphics.

Who cares!?

If its got good gameplay does it matter?Look at the retro and indy movement. There are tons of successful games with lo-fi graphics.

So really, are mediocre graphics really a reason to reduce a game's rating?

I'm with you there. I stopped caring about graphics a long time ago.

Graphics = immersion. Are you really that daft?

Graphics = immersion. Are you really that daft?

Johnny_Rock

This to a certain point, right now i'm pretty happy with the graphics we have

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Graphics = immersion. Are you really that daft?

James161324

This to a certain point, right now i'm pretty happy with the graphics we have

So am I. But to let graphics become stagnant and not progress from what it is now is not progressive.

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Graphics = immersion. Are you really that daft?

Johnny_Rock

This to a certain point, right now i'm pretty happy with the graphics we have

So am I. But to let graphics become stagnant and not progress from what it is now is not progressive.

Thats true, but then i had some of the most fun i had in a long time with max payne 2 a few months ago. Graphics mean something but great gameplay can always trump graphics

I can enjoy pretty much any game as long as the game is good, the graphics are just gravy. To say they don't matter however is silly.

Yea, it's all about IMMERSHUN to these new breed of gamers. Look at a game like Skyrim. The combat isn't good, the writing/story/characters/dialog isn't good, the RPG mechanics are laughable. But it's a big open world game that looks pretty. And ppl buy it by the truckloads.

Look at the retro and indy movement. There are tons of successful games with lo-fi graphics.

twizzickle

They're also using their graphics as a selling point. I'm honestly amazed by how many people fall in the trap of false nostalgia. So many of these retro games look a lot worse than games of the period they're claiming to emulate.

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

[QUOTE="James161324"]

This to a certain point, right now i'm pretty happy with the graphics we have

James161324

So am I. But to let graphics become stagnant and not progress from what it is now is not progressive.

Thats true, but then i had some of the most fun i had in a long time with max payne 2 a few months ago. Graphics mean something but great gameplay can always trump graphics

The best gameplay I had was on Steam with the game X-Com UFO Defense. No, graphics are not the most important thing to me either...

because it's 2012 and there should be no excuse for a game having bad graphics.

because it's 2012 and there should be no excuse for a game having bad graphics.

jakes456

Depends entirely on the game and the type of gamer you are. These days, there are genres and styles to cater for everyone out there. If you like graphic heavy games (as I do) then you're better off sticking with the PC or XBox. Otherwise, the gameplay focused games tend to be on Nintendo consoles.

This is the reason I don't understand people who say grahpics are ruining games when the market is split down the middle to keep both sides happy. I personally think graphics are hugely important if you're trying to tell a story such as in BioShock or The Witcher - especially in games that take place in other worlds.

However, there's also the task of balancing the graphics and gameplay within those games too. I think a good example would be Alan Wake and the use of lighting both as a plot enhancing graphical feature and as gameplay as using the torch almost becomes a skill in itself.

Because it imerses you more in the game's world and makes the environment more believable. That is a major part of some games. One of the major appeals of gaming is doing things you can't/won't do in real life, or visiting amazing looking places.

I play plenty of low-fi games, but I also can appreciate great graphics and new jumps in fidelity and atmosphere created by effects (ie lighting, ect) really can create new experiences and enhance games. So while I don't need a game to have the best graphics ever...I certainly appreciate when a game goes the extra mile in it's presenetation. Video games are a (by in large) a visual medium are they not?

As an example last year one of my favorite RPG's I played was Eschalon: Book II. Crappy graphics, but still very fun. I also enjoyed the hell out of Skyrim. Amazing open world, fun combat, nice character building, fun quests...and to top it all off an absolutely great presentation. The atmosphere and visual feast on offer was really great and enhanced my fun with the game. I would have still enjoyed it if it looked like Morrowind, but with it's graphics the game was taken to the next level.

So to the question of why care about graphics anymore? The answer is obvious.

I see people write reviews and complain about graphics.

Who cares!?

If its got good gameplay does it matter?Look at the retro and indy movement. There are tons of successful games with lo-fi graphics.

So really, are mediocre graphics really a reason to reduce a game's rating?

twizzickle

graphics are a part of the game. but if you see a review and its sole focus is the graphics alone, then you have just been given an very poor opinion by a reviewer. but to answer your question about mediocre graphics, you can find that scattered around GS. just check out and of the games that scored well that YOU THINK have mediocre graphics and then some of the ones that didnt score so well, despite having some top not graphics. the answers are all around you around here. 99.99999% of the time a games review is based on the expected experience vs experience you have while playing the game.....the other .00001% is money! but were not supposed to know that one ;)

Go read a book then.

It's a visual medium. Games without graphics is just punching buttons without awe or reactivity. Even 'retro' games have their own visual style that some people find satisfying (and others don't).

A good game is all about balance. I'm good enough with Valve's standard of graphics as they do seem good enough as it is and the fun gameplay mixed with it.

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Graphics = immersion. Are you really that daft?

Johnny_Rock

This to a certain point, right now i'm pretty happy with the graphics we have

So am I. But to let graphics become stagnant and not progress from what it is now is not progressive.

True, but keeping the same graphics level we have now, and improving on the performance and optimization of those graphics would still be progressive. Which is what I wouldn't mind seeing, graphics now are at a good enough level to where we can do this, then once they get better at the performance side, then move on to more detailed graphics, just my 2 cents.

Graphics = immersion. Are you really that daft?

Johnny_Rock

Well if graphics quality started to stagnated, at least we wouldn't have to upgrade our PCs as often. :P

I wouldn't play the games I enjoy playing if I cared about graphics. They also don't really enhance my sense of immersion - I have an imagination for that.

I wouldn't play the games I enjoy playing if I cared about graphics. They also don't really enhance my sense of immersion - I have an imagination for that.

-wildflower-

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

I wouldn't play the games I enjoy playing if I cared about graphics. They also don't really enhance my sense of immersion - I have an imagination for that.

Zubinen

I sure as hell don't. Realized this at the end of Gemini Rue. For the most part if a games gameplay and story is greater than it's graphics I will not think anything less of it.

Guy1 "I just bought this new 60$ game"

Guy2"Oh koo, Is it fun?"

Guy1 "No, but it sure as hell looks good."

Guy2 -_-

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Graphics = immersion. Are you really that daft?

Johnny_Rock

This to a certain point, right now i'm pretty happy with the graphics we have

So am I. But to let graphics become stagnant and not progress from what it is now is not progressive.

This is my opinion. I want the most immersive experience possible. Graphics also need to improve with time. I'm never not going to care because as soon as people do, devs might just get lazy and create the same stuff for years. *Looks at Activision

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

[QUOTE="James161324"]

This to a certain point, right now i'm pretty happy with the graphics we have

Masenkoe

So am I. But to let graphics become stagnant and not progress from what it is now is not progressive.

This is my opinion. I want the most immersive experience possible. Graphics also need to improve with time. I'm never not going to care because as soon as people do, devs might just get lazy and create the same stuff for years. *Looks at Activision

Not always.

Don't confuse great graphics with immersion.

A game doesn't have to have photo realistic graphics to produce immersion.

A book doesn't have graphics yet it is one of the most immersive medias in the world. Go look at Schindlers List, the movie wasn't shot in perfect colours or ultra high resolution camera, yet it's a highly immersive film.

A game can produce immersion with sound, story, characters etc. I was very immersed into "To the Moon" and that had 80s graphics.

I don't want to sound like a troll, but really? The only people who seem to complain about people who have standards when it comes to graphics are primarily console gamers.

I pay for the hardware to push 1080p with all the post-processing I can. Why? Because nothing bugs the hell of me more than muddy textures, no FSAA, texture pop-in, and object pop-in (I'm looking at you Rift/TOR). Thats why I only rarely play my 360 anymore. People b***** and b***** and b***** about PC gamers who get pissed when a games gets ported from 720p consoles with the same texture quality and lack of post-processing options. It is 2012 and the Unreal Engine games STILL does not support FSAA without forcing it in drivers. At this point if a AAA title doesn't have 1080p quality textures and a full range of FSAA, aniso, shadow, tesselation options then its bargain bin. Because I am not supporting dev laziness/cheapness by paying full price for their game.

Devs fail to provide PC quality visuals and then are aghast when their games underperform on the PC (just look at RAGE and Crysis 2). Also I am getting really sick of games getting coded to offload operations to the CPU that could be much more efficiently rendered using the GPU. RIFT and TOR are the worst offenders I have seen in a while. On my old rig they were both maxing out my 3-core Phenom and using less than 70% on my GPU (a GTX 260). Stop coding the engines for the lowest common denominator when it comes to grafics hardware!

For me story is the most important thing, but graphics and gameplay are pretty damn close.

/rant

Gaming is not black and white. I can have both on PC. I'll enjoy super meat boy one minute and then go and mod crysis until my eyes bleed the next. I can have my cake and eat it too. I'll complain if the game looks like ass though. Super meat boy does not look like ass, but crysis on low does.

I don't want to sound like a troll, but really? The only people who seem to complain about people who have standards when it comes to graphics are primarily console gamers.

I pay for the hardware to push 1080p with all the post-processing I can. Why? Because nothing bugs the hell of me more than muddy textures, no FSAA, texture pop-in, and object pop-in (I'm looking at you Rift/TOR). Thats why I only rarely play my 360 anymore. People b***** and b***** and b***** about PC gamers who get pissed when a games gets ported from 720p consoles with the same texture quality and lack of post-processing options. It is 2012 and the Unreal Engine games STILL does not support FSAA without forcing it in drivers. At this point if a AAA title doesn't have 1080p quality textures and a full range of FSAA, aniso, shadow, tesselation options then its bargain bin. Because I am not supporting dev laziness/cheapness by paying full price for their game.

Devs fail to provide PC quality visuals and then are aghast when their games underperform on the PC (just look at RAGE and Crysis 2). Also I am getting really sick of games getting coded to offload operations to the CPU that could be much more efficiently rendered using the GPU. RIFT and TOR are the worst offenders I have seen in a while. On my old rig they were both maxing out my 3-core Phenom and using less than 70% on my GPU (a GTX 260). Stop coding the engines for the lowest common denominator when it comes to grafics hardware!

For me story is the most important thing, but graphics and gameplay are pretty damn close.

/rant

SerOlmy

A game doesn't have to max out ur hardware to be good, just sayin...

No it doesn't. But a AAA title should. I love indi games like Bastion and Anomaly, they don't have amazing graphics, but they still have good visuals. What I can't stand are AAA titles that have the budget and experience to produce great quality visuals, but instead just decide to port 720p quality to the PC and call it it a day. The current console gen is 6+ years old, 6 year old graphics just doesn't cut it on the PC anymore. A lot of games are throwing us a bone with HD texture packs, but IMO that is the bare minimum.

No it doesn't. But a AAA triple should. I love indi games like Bastion and Anomaly, they don't have amazing graphics, but they still have good visuals. What I can't stand are AAA titles that have the budget and experience to produce great quality visuals, but instead just decide to port 720p quality to the PC and call it it a day. The current console gen is 6+ years old, 6 year old graphics just doesn't cut it on the PC anymore. A lot of games are throwing us a bone with HD texture packs, but IMO that is the bare minimum.SerOlmy

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Graphics = immersion. Are you really that daft?

nilzg

It's not so much about graphics more so how the visuals fit with the game.

Depends on the genre and the game design particularly. If its meant to be cinematic in experience, for example, then the game requires intensive graphics.

Plus its also quite a subjective issue so its another topic people like to pointlessly bicker about and act as if he knows better.

I see people write reviews and complain about graphics.

Who cares!?

If its got good gameplay does it matter?Look at the retro and indy movement. There are tons of successful games with lo-fi graphics.

So really, are mediocre graphics really a reason to reduce a game's rating?

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

[QUOTE="James161324"]

This to a certain point, right now i'm pretty happy with the graphics we have

James161324

So am I. But to let graphics become stagnant and not progress from what it is now is not progressive.

Thats true, but then i had some of the most fun i had in a long time with max payne 2 a few months ago. Graphics mean something but great gameplay can always trump graphics

It's not so much about graphics more so how the visuals fit with the game.

timma25

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

So am I. But to let graphics become stagnant and not progress from what it is now is not progressive.

Elann2008

Thats true, but then i had some of the most fun i had in a long time with max payne 2 a few months ago. Graphics mean something but great gameplay can always trump graphics