Graphics Vs. Just plain gaming.

[downwitdaclown69]

With the release of 360 i have nopticed it more and more, people are gaming for graphics. Does anyone else notice this?


Just the other day prey was released XBL marketplace and people are arguing saying they hate it because the graphics suck, and they dont, they looked like a souped up doom 3. But thats nopt the point they game is very well made, fun and addictive and not a watered down FPS.

Does anyone else notice this? It makes me sad, that people game for graphics and not the actuall game.

I cant wait for the Wii, that will change everything, people will game for games and not the graphics.

Anyways gimmie your thoughts. I posted this in General, because this happens on all systems.

 

[CloacalKiss]

I think your both right and wrong.

With these next-gen consoles there has been such a higher demand for quality graphics. The reason for this is the companies [Sony and Microsoft] have pumped the fans so much on having quality graphics and people just expect good graphics these days.

I don't know, I can't really go into what I think right now.

But I'll admit. These days, I like a good game... but graphics are high on my list of expectations for these new games, but not a reason I'm going to buy a game.

 

[Haydi]

I take beautiful graphics still as an extra - they give out one more side to a game you can enjoy. Graphics aren't the reason at least I buy games, but I do enjoy them if the game is also great.

Naturally you don't really expect crappy craphics in new games nowadays. I don't think games never get dismissed merely becouse it didn't have as many polygons per hair, but clitchy and badly designed graphics really take out some of the games charm and atmosphere. It's not the main part of the gaming experience, but it still is a part that no game designer dismiss.

I wouldn't worry about gaming on games taking the backseat. Graphics can never become the main priority, becouse graphics can never repair a missing gameplay. Not everyone even notices if graphics are a bit outdated, but everyone can tell when the gameplay just isn't there - we aren't fooled that easily.

 

[downwitdaclown69]

Yeah. One example i have lately is The outfit, while the game is not the best graphical game on 360 it is still a for sure fun time.

My friend was anti-outfit, because he didnt like the demo. Then i got my hands on the real copy, and let him check it out. He loves it and so do i. The game is extremly fun with the strategy and the destruction.

Yet the game gets hated on by boards and chatters on xbl, one of the main complaints is because fo the graphics. Just one of them things that angers me.


Far cry Instincts: Predator is another badass game to check out, where the graphics arent the best, the games storyline is awesome, and its 2 full games in one, also the map maker is the best on any consle to date.

*sorry that my posts refer to 360 games lol* just what i play mostly.

 

[EliaSoZ]

Graphics aren't everything, but good graphics are expected out of the next-gen like someone said before me.

Graphics don't take first place for me.

Sometimes they can turn me off from a game, like when I tried playing "Gabriel Knight III", and it looked like shit. But that was because it's an adventure game and has lotsa dialogue and exploring, so if it looks like total crap that's a problem.

But I play 2D games and even Quake III. So overall, gameplay takes the main seat 98.3425% of the time.

 

[masterchris]

Story and gameplay far outweighs graphics.

This is why Silent Hill is still my #1 game.

This is why I have been known to get out the old NES or Intellivision from time to time.

Honestly, if Konami, right now decided they were going to release a new Silent Hill game on the PlayStation (not PS2), I would buy it.

 

[downwitdaclown69]

Hell yeah silent hill 1 is one of my favorite games ever.

 

[Dave Matthews]

I like graphics a lot, but I prefer graphics that have their own unique 'style' over emphasizing the latest technology in pixelbumpmapshadingpolygonenhancingblahblah that the new consoles will supply for us. A 4 year old game like Rez or Space Channel 5, with a unique visual style and some truly aesthetically gorgeous graphics, generally means a lot more to me than a technological feast, like Halo 2 for example.

 

[LinksOcarina]

graphics are ok, but in the end that is all they are. Will the graphics affect the gameplay so much so, that if you can see the holes in the steel crate you shot, or the random bits of paper casting a shadow in an open street, that you won't play it if it doesn't have good graphics.

Look at Wii Sports. We all have seen the screenshots, and if you were to judge it based on graphics, many people say it sucks.

Even more so, the CELda controversy 3 years ago. People denounced Link for being in the cel shaded graphics. Gameplay doesn't matter to a majority of the mainstream anymore. The push now is for realistic graphics.

And that is what Sony and Microsoft are doing basically. They are pushing the realistic graphics over tight controls and overall preformance. Granted, a good looking game is nice, and some games need to be good looking, and work, at the same time. Look at Oblvion or Call of Duty. Awesome looking games with tight controls and tons of fun to play. Games like that have the balance. Other games, like Perfect Dark Zero, look great, but don't play well.

For me, and most of the older gamers before the mainstream boom, I find they prefer the control styles and playability over graphics. I will always rather play a game with tight controls and better playability over games that look real. Hands down, the playability is more important than graphics.

 

[Dave Matthews]

'
And that is what Sony and Microsoft are doing basically. They are pushing the realistic graphics over tight controls and overall preformance. Granted, a good looking game is nice, and some games need to be good looking, and work, at the same time. Look at Oblvion or Call of Duty. Awesome looking games with tight controls and tons of fun to play. Games like that have the balance. Other games, like Perfect Dark Zero, look great, but don't play well. '

Disagree, how about Ico, which was actually published by Sony?

 

[LinksOcarina]

But remember, ICO was in the beginning of Playstation 2's console life, and it didn't sell well at all. It is an underrated sleeper hit. Kind of like Stubbs the Zombie, Brute Force, Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil are. All of them are great games, with either good or not so good graphics, but have strong playability and play control.

 

[downwitdaclown69]

But remember, ICO was in the beginning of Playstation 2's console life, and it didn't sell well at all. It is an underrated sleeper hit. Kind of like Stubbs the Zombie, Brute Force, Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil are. All of them are great games, with either good or not so good graphics, but have strong playability and play control.

I love you. He has hit this head on. All them games (with the section of brute force) are sleeper hits. Were not the best graphicaly but handle and play really well.

Take a look at the Deus Ex games, they dont look the best but play really well.


Oh and no offense to the brute force game, but that game was a rental beat it it in like 4 hours, i thought it was too over-hyped. I still have a ad, that says the next halo. PSsssh.

 

[LinksOcarina]

I enjoyed it, but it was a short game though.

 

[Sodbuster]

I think that graphics are becoming so in demand is because that's what the big companies want. Once graphics become the only criteria gamers use to judge whether to buy a game, all the big developers won't have to worry about coming up with anything original and creative. They can just release the same game over and over with a few tweaks and better graphics (look at every sports franchise). They're hyping graphics waaaaay too much, hoping that we'll forget about everything else. It's not just graphics though, it's the new technology. Physics engines, A.I., all that happy crap. They have an easy time making a game with those in it, because they've already done it (or somebody else has and they can just use their engine).

If you truly value controls and fun gameplay over graphics, you should check out Mount and Blade at www.taleworlds.com. There's a free trial download that's only like 50MB. The copyright protection won't screw up your computer (believe me, it's been discussed on that site already by myself and a few others. Run a search on their forum if that's something you worry about). If you do decide to buy the game, it's less than $20 (last I checked). Sorry to plug this game again, but I've been playing it like non-stop for a while and it really makes me happy to see what a couple developers with a good idea can do.

 

[Paradox]

if one plays games for the graphics, then they are not a gamer.

 

[TheNesMan]

Graphics certainly count for something, but no where as much as gameplay. It's hard to play games with terrible graphics, and good gameplay. It's also hard to play games with terrible gameplay and amazing graphics. A balance is needed. Games like re4 show amazing balance. Great graphics, kick ass gameplay=great game.

 

[Ted Wolff]

Don't know who it was, but someone said that the graphics argument would be put to rest in the coming generation. As graphics start to top out and nothing noticeably new can be seen in them, then developers will be forced to focus back on the actual innards of the game.

 

[Dark_Legacy]

Problem with that assertion is the Spike Theory, which simply states all technological development will continue in an upwards arc until it is virtually making leaps and bounds every day. chip in your brain and stuff.


That's just a mathmatical theory though.

I think there will always be shitty games. Always be beautiful games, but it's on the part of the greater gaming community to buy and support the actual games that achieve all or most of the general requirements of a A-,B+ (in GR terms). The more we separate ourselves from obsessive fandom and really take a look at these games, not only do they have to look decent and play great, they have to be fun!

Beyond the console wars and the incessant fanboyness, we have to realize that ultimately we have the deciding factor, beyond fans, what companies base their plans on most is sales.


SO the games we buy determine-ultimately-the quality and types of games they make. graphics versus gameplay-well which one sells better?

 

[LinksOcarina]

The answer to that, DL, is Graphics. Everyone wants the pretty looking cake, even if it tastes like crap, they get it anyway.

It's like an inner beauty, play control. It's sweet to some, but not what everyone looks for.

 

[StreetFighterRyu]

Even 8-bit games can be more fun than some of the newer games. Graphics are good to have but not the best. The best is either the gameplay or the stoyline. Or both. Spartan: Total War's graphics are ok but the game is still awsome. The only time I count on graphics is when I play stealth games like Splinter Cell or creepy and mysterious games like Blair Witch. Mostly because of the atmosphere and shadows. But all in all, as long as the game is still good then I'll play it.