Why is graphics that important?

I realize it's important to have a game look nice; but get real. Gameplay is way more important than graphics. How much fun you have with X game ought to be the main factor, and not just how nice it looks. Why is graphics held with such reverance?

What is this graphics talk? Thats for pc hermits, imo, and their dying platform.

Because graphics are an objective evidence of a platform's capabilities

Because graphics can often provide a breath-taking experience which improves the enjoyment of the game given that the game has good gameplay. Perfect example Crysis. I was just wowed when I played it on everything Very High. It actually made me enjoy the game more because I would just walk and drive around and enjoy the gorgeous secenery.

What is this graphics talk? Thats for pc hermits, imo, and their dying platform.

Bikouchu35

Wanna provide proof to go with that.

[QUOTE="Bikouchu35"]

What is this graphics talk? Thats for pc hermits, imo, and their dying platform.

Xtasy26

Wanna provide proof to go with that.

graphics increase the immersion of the gameplay.

not so much cranking out WTF ridiculous resolutions and ultra high res textures... but providing a realistic looking gameworld with objects that react realistically.

What is this graphics talk? Thats for pc hermits, imo, and their dying platform.

Bikouchu35

Graphics are important because they take the attention away from how generic and boring your game actually is (coughkillzone2cough)

[QUOTE="Bikouchu35"]

What is this graphics talk? Thats for pc hermits, imo, and their dying platform.

Arach666

Its not just Hermits. Lemmings and Cows make graphics talk just as much, and may Idare say, more than the Hermits.Don't be putting all the graphics blame on one group of fanboys.

[QUOTE="Arach666"][QUOTE="Bikouchu35"]

What is this graphics talk? Thats for pc hermits, imo, and their dying platform.

Calvin079

Its not just Hermits. Lemmings and Cows make graphics talk just as much, and may Idare say, more than the Hermits.Don't be putting all the graphics blame on one group of fanboys.

[QUOTE="Calvin079"]

[QUOTE="Arach666"] Indeed,I agree. Pftt,those hermits...Arach666

Its not just Hermits. Lemmings and Cows make graphics talk just as much, and may Idare say, more than the Hermits.Don't be putting all the graphics blame on one group of fanboys.

I really dont get why people downplay graphics so much sometimes. They matter. Alot. Everything in a game matters that contributes to the over all experience. Like would you rather play a game with awesome gameplay and bad graphics, or awesome gameplay AND awesome graphics... Saying graphics dont matter is like saying that drummers in rock bands arent important... Erm.. I guess you could still make music without em or whatever, but having an amazing drummer would add so many more possibilties and different dynamics to the musical experience

Yes, you can have a good game with "terrible" graphics. i have a few games that are like that on the DS.I also have a game on PC where the graphics look nice, but the game is rather hard. But I still like it a lot. It is posiible to have good graphics and mediocre gameplay. But it is also possible to have both.

Because it's the first thing you'll encounter after launching a game software.

^ :lol: true. But, I'm saying; realistically, are they all cut out as some in SW make them out to be?

I really dont get why people downplay graphics so much sometimes. They matter. Alot. Everything in a game matters that contributes to the over all experience. Like would you rather play a game with awesome gameplay and bad graphics, or awesome gameplay AND awesome graphics... Saying graphics dont matter is like saying that drummers in rock bands arent important... Erm.. I guess you could still make music without em or whatever, but having an amazing drummer would add so many more possibilties and different dynamics to the musical experience

VendettaRed07

the problem is PC gamers are constantly putting tons of emphasis on things like video and texture resolutions and framerates.... which honestly dont matter that much as long as they are serviceable. Beyond a certain point i think things like that add very little to the game.

However various lighting effects, animations, physics, and yes "teh foliage"... now those i think matter quite a bit.

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

I really dont get why people downplay graphics so much sometimes. They matter. Alot. Everything in a game matters that contributes to the over all experience. Like would you rather play a game with awesome gameplay and bad graphics, or awesome gameplay AND awesome graphics... Saying graphics dont matter is like saying that drummers in rock bands arent important... Erm.. I guess you could still make music without em or whatever, but having an amazing drummer would add so many more possibilties and different dynamics to the musical experience

markinthedark

the problem is PC gamers are constantly putting tons of emphasis on things like video and texture resolutions and framerates.... which honestly dont matter that much as long as they are serviceable. Beyond a certain point i think things like that add very little to the game.

However various lighting effects, animations, physics, and yes "teh foliage"... now those i think matter quite a bit.

yeah you have a point people do take it to extremes, and what I mean by good graphics is just a game looking good. It has to be athsetically pleasing. Like Yoshis Island to this day has great graphics.. But when a game comes out like MAG or whatever and looks like crap I dont think it should be brushed off like it doesnt matter because it harms the experience imo

I realize it's important to have a game look nice; but get real. Gameplay is way more important than graphics. How much fun you have with X game ought to be the main factor, and not just how nice it looks. Why is graphics held with such reverance?

Calvin079

What do you think the difference was between SNES and NES? One was 16-bit and the other only 8-bit, aka. graphics difference. And somehow, that fact didn't stop the SNES from unanimously being proclaimed as a better console. The ps2 was better than the ps1 for nothing other than the graphics, despite the already ellaborate ps1 library. That is the way the industry moves forward, and has been moving forward for the past 20 years. You are simply in denial.

Well graphicsa are usually icing on the cake, the cake being a good game. Also I like to think that theres effort put into the game I am playing and when something looks like Crysis or BC2 its easy to think some Dev sweat and ambition went into the game. That being said great graphics are not necesarry. I still play and love CSS and now Im playing Minecraft which in now way can be called pretty.

Sure gameplay is more important. But why even make new consoles at this point if you don't give a hoot about graphics. You might not consider graphics as the MOST important factor in considering a game, but they factor in there somewhere.

why are. and the answer is simple without graphics there would be no game.

why are. and the answer is simple without graphics there would be no game.

washd123

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text-based_game

If no one cared about graphics, we'd all be happy with just the PS2, XBox, and GC. Plus, no one would be ragging about the Wii's graphics.

They're not. Just something PS3/PC owners use to judge how good their games are.

Graphics are very important imo... and forums are proof that probably Graphics are the most important thing (in forums) since practically 95% of discussions are based on which game/system offers better visuals..

I dont see people many topics/discussions over which game has better AI, better story, better voice acting, animation, plot etc etc (and these are also as important as visuals to immerse players more into the game.)

I realize it's important to have a game look nice; but get real. Gameplay is way more important than graphics. Calvin079

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

I really dont get why people downplay graphics so much sometimes. They matter. Alot. Everything in a game matters that contributes to the over all experience. Like would you rather play a game with awesome gameplay and bad graphics, or awesome gameplay AND awesome graphics... Saying graphics dont matter is like saying that drummers in rock bands arent important... Erm.. I guess you could still make music without em or whatever, but having an amazing drummer would add so many more possibilties and different dynamics to the musical experience

markinthedark

the problem is PC gamers are constantly putting tons of emphasis on things like video and texture resolutions and framerates.... which honestly dont matter that much as long as they are serviceable. Beyond a certain point i think things like that add very little to the game.

However various lighting effects, animations, physics, and yes "teh foliage"... now those i think matter quite a bit.

It matters if it means jaggies everywhere or not.

It's a huge "turn-off" to see jaggies everywhere when there can be little to none instead.

Also, lighting can make a huge difference.

Shining example:

PC

360

Gameplay and graphics do not cancel eachother out. You can have both at the same time (look at Crysis for example). Why not take the best of both worlds?

PandaBear86

Give me Serious Sam over Crysis any day.

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

Gameplay and graphics do not cancel eachother out. You can have both at the same time (look at Crysis for example). Why not take the best of both worlds?

Zophar87

Give me Serious Sam over Crysis any day.

Either way, Serious Sam's gameplay would not be any different if it had better graphics. Tell me you wouldn't love Serious Sam with Crysis-level graphics ;)

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

Gameplay and graphics do not cancel eachother out. You can have both at the same time (look at Crysis for example). Why not take the best of both worlds?

Zophar87

Give me Serious Sam over Crysis any day.

Crysis is tactical while Serious Sam is really arcade like.

They are pretty different in terms of FPS and not really that comparable.

A better comparison would be a tactical single player game like.... I guess Call of Duty or Killzone 2 compared to Crysis.

Or Duke Nukem(or Doom or something) compared to Serious Sam.

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

Gameplay and graphics do not cancel eachother out. You can have both at the same time (look at Crysis for example). Why not take the best of both worlds?

Give me Serious Sam over Crysis any day.

Crysis is tactical while Serious Sam is really arcade like.

They are pretty different in terms of FPS and not really that comparable.

A better comparison would be a tactical single player game like.... I guess Call of Duty or Killzone 2 compared to Crysis.

Or Duke Nukem(or Doom or something) compared to Serious Sam.

DragonfireXZ95

/facepalm

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="Zophar87"]

Give me Serious Sam over Crysis any day.

PandaBear86

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

Crysis is tactical while Serious Sam is really arcade like.

They are pretty different in terms of FPS and not really that comparable.

A better comparison would be a tactical single player game like.... I guess Call of Duty or Killzone 2 compared to Crysis.

Or Duke Nukem(or Doom or something) compared to Serious Sam.

Zophar87

/facepalm

The immersion argument:

While true that graphics may add to a game to be more immersive, gameplay is the real key for greater immersion. If the gameplay is awesome, you will be completely immersed even if it was an 8-bit game, cruddy looking game. If gameplay is great, then that means it'll suck you in because of that gameplay.

Not to mention the whole thing about gameplay providing the core fun etc. But on top of those reasons, that is why gameplay will always > graphics no matter what. Even gameplay tops graphics in terms of immersion.

I realize it's important to have a game look nice; but get real. Gameplay is way more important than graphics. How much fun you have with X game ought to be the main factor, and not just how nice it looks. Why is graphics held with such reverance?

Calvin079

MONEY.

How is that a face palm? It's the truth...DragonfireXZ95

They both fall under the same genre. I completely agree with a statement made earlier saying that one could equal Serious Sam's action with Crysis's graphics. If I have something that I find to be better as far as overall gameplay goes, and something that I feel in my opinion is a better game. I'm saying, when it comes down to games in that genre, give me gameplay over graphics any day of the week.

Who's to argue?

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

How is that a face palm? It's the truth...Zophar87

They both fall under the same genre. I completely agree with a statement made earlier saying that one could equal Serious Sam's action with Crysis's graphics. If I have something that I find to be better as far as overall gameplay goes, and something that I feel in my opinion is a better game. I'm saying, when it comes down to games in that genre, give me gameplay over graphics any day of the week.

Who's to argue?

Fair enough :)

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

How is that a face palm? It's the truth...Zophar87

They both fall under the same genre. I completely agree with a statement made earlier saying that one could equal Serious Sam's action with Crysis's graphics. If I have something that I find to be better as far as overall gameplay goes, and something that I feel in my opinion is a better game. I'm saying, when it comes down to games in that genre, give me gameplay over graphics any day of the week.

Who's to argue?

Sure they fall under the same genre, but they aren't even close in terms of gameplay.

You could rate them subjectively as a whole on a scale of 1 to 10, but to compare them in terms of one aspect which is what you originally stated, "Give me Serious Sam over Crysis any day." when responding to, "Gameplay and graphics do not cancel eachother out. You can have both at the same time (look at Crysis for example). Why not take the best of both worlds?" is just not very feasible. You implied that Serious Sam has better gameplay than Crysis even though Crysis has better graphics, when the gameplay isn't even comparable by itself considering the nature of the games.

I suppose you could judge them like that, but it's not a very reasonable judging because they are so different. It's like comparing the gameplay of Sins of a Solar Empire to Starcraft 2 and claiming one is better than the other, when the gameplay is radically different.

Sure they fall under the same genre, but they aren't even close in terms of gameplay.

You could rate them subjectively as a whole on a scale of 1 to 10, but to compare them in terms of one aspect which is what you originally stated, "Give me Serious Sam over Crysis any day." when responding to, "Gameplay and graphics do not cancel eachother out. You can have both at the same time (look at Crysis for example). Why not take the best of both worlds?" is just not very feasible. You implied that Serious Sam has better gameplay than Crysis even though Crysis has better graphics, when the gameplay isn't even comparable by itself considering the nature of the games.

I suppose you could judge them like that, but it's not a very reasonable judging because they are so different. It's like comparing the gameplay of Sins of a Solar Empire to Starcraft 2 and claiming one is better than the other, when the gameplay is radically different.

DragonfireXZ95

So I prefer Serious Sam over Crysis? Why is this a big deal? =\