Graphics whores.

[Cordyceps]

I was just wondering if there are many people here who value consoles and games highly for their graphic quality?

I admit that I was a sucker for Crysis, though from what I hear, there is a raging console war between Xbox 360 and the PS3, based primarily on the graphic quality of the games.

PC beats them both, but that's not important right now...

I would prefer a good game with high replay value/story with shitty graphics over a game with great graphics but mediocre gameplay/story.

[sixflab]

At 8/23/10 02:44 AM, Digital-Terror wrote: I was just wondering if there are many people here who value consoles and games highly for their graphic quality?

There are a good amount of people on this site who will start an argument over which console is better but it's mostly preference anyway.

I would prefer a good game with high replay value/story with shitty graphics over a game with great graphics but mediocre gameplay/story.

Total agreement on this. Great graphics aren't going to make me waste a lot of time on a game. Actual quality fun gameplay will make me waste a lot of time. Maybe even play the game a couple times through.

[jAvAcOlA]

I care about graphics. They don't need to be incredible or anything...but an example is that I still have never gotten more than a little bit into FF7 because the graphics are so horrible.

[Fluffington]

A pretty looking game makes a pretty experience.

it's not everything, but it's definitely a huge plus.

[KeroKeroMario]

Graphics should only count as a fraction of the game, as should all aspects of a game. HD =/= good graphics. You don't need a 1080p display to have a game look good (although it helps a lot). Graphics must be stylish and have a distinct characteristic that best utilizes the hardware's capabilities and limits. With this philosophy, Super Mario Bros. is a good looking game (for NES standards, at least).

[kazumazkan]

there all good for me

[Jackho]

At 8/23/10 03:00 AM, jAvAcOlA wrote: I care about graphics. They don't need to be incredible or anything...but an example is that I still have never gotten more than a little bit into FF7 because the graphics are so horrible.

You're whats wrong with the gaming industry.

[TheMaster]

Early 3D games are almost unplayable without nostalgia backing them up these days.

Maybe not so much cartoony platformers and the like, but definitely "realistic" PS1/N64 games.

[Simple]

Usually I can't play a game if it has bad graphics, unless it's just amazing like Goldeneye. However games with good storys and gameplay tend to be well made and have great graphics to back them up. The prime examples being the Final Fantasy franchise. For the time of each game all the graphics were amazing, also Final Fantasy 10 to be specific, the cgi cutscenes could rival some games actual graphics now.

[SloppyMoe606]

At 8/23/10 08:40 AM, TheMaster wrote: Early 3D games are almost unplayable without nostalgia backing them up these days.

Maybe not so much cartoony platformers and the like, but definitely "realistic" PS1/N64 games.

Duke Nukem 3D will never get old. Never.

[Murray]

To me, graphics are least important for video games. Sure, it's great to see amazing graphics on a video game but if one game doesn't have top notch graphics or my laptop can't handle a certain game on full settings, it's not a big deal. I care more about performance then graphics so for PC games, I'll keep the settings to whatever makes the game run smoothly.

[Trystlions]

Games need to have at least good graphics. Nothing amazing, just as long as the game is not as ugly as fuck then it will get pass marks from me.

[CapnCrunchDaPimp]

Good graphics are a nice touch, but it's sad that older games are being overlooked because their visuals aren't as polished as newer titles. Eventually, all graphics will look old and outdated, but the gameplay won't change. Graphics in a certain game can be memorable and classic, as well. It's ridiculous to buy a game just because it's pretty. It's all what's underneath in the long run.

[OwnageGiy223]

At 8/23/10 02:44 AM, Digital-Terror wrote:

PC beats them both, but that's not important right now...

All credibility lost here. A PC can have better graphics if you feel like paying hundreds for a video card, but chances are, the Consoles will look better.

[CompleteDouche]

At 8/23/10 11:02 AM, OwnageGiy223 wrote: All credibility lost here. A PC can have better graphics if you feel like paying hundreds for a video card, but chances are, the Consoles will look better.

Spoken like a guy who has no idea about what he's talking about.
It is pretty easy and cheap to beat a 5 year old console with a graphics card. A card slightly above the PS3's level would be around $70-100

Now back on topic. I don't think 1080p matters or that it's HD at all. The game better have a good artstyle.
Paper Mario is a prime example, as the game came out 10 years ago, but with the cartoonish artstyle it took the game can be played fine by anyone. But when you hand Goldeneye to anyone today (Mostly a new gamer) they would probably refuse to play it because of it's graphics.

[darklink4567]

I agree one hundred percent with the OP. Just because it's not pretty, doesn't make it a terrible game. If Crysis 2 is going to have outstanding graphics but a completely terrible story and gameplay that doesn't make it fun, will you stand for that?

I find myself playing much older games for the NES or SNES, and guess what... It's all just pixels! And it's good, very good.

[MrDerogative]

I think a good way to look at graphics is to look at it's role from a nuetral perspective. They are fairly important factors in presentation, graphics supply most of what the game's style is. However, you can never say that graphics are more important than story, controls, and gameplay. If a game had terrible controls, a boring storyline, and an all around boring experience, but had fantastic graphics, can you say that it's a great game? That's up to your personal preferences but obviously many people would agree that it wouldn't be a good game.

[Can-head]

At 8/23/10 08:40 AM, TheMaster wrote: Early 3D games are almost unplayable without nostalgia backing them up these days.

Erm... Nope, this isn't true. Actually, I first played DOOM on my Xbox360 some years ago when it was for sale on Xboxlive arcade. Even if the graphic were bad, I didn't cared, as the game was awesome. Same thing with Elders Scroll 2: Daggerfall. I never played this game before 2010 and yet I find it amazing. When you play old games and the like, you need to remember that those games were made, most of the time, more than 10 year ago.

Gameplay over graphic anytimes...

[watchedmovies]

Me? A graphic whore? Hell no, broski, hell no..
I still have an Atari2600 plugged in my room and me and my bro sometimes play ourselves some Mario Bros 3 on the real dragon fucker : the NES. Good graphics are nice, but they don't make a good game. example : look at mario 64, LOOK AT IT!!! IT'S A GODDAMN POLYGON MESS!!! but it's awesome and I've played through it a lot of times. But, on the SNES, play some Batman Forever. This game had some reasonably nice graphics. You know, it was attracting to the eye. But ass soon as you get to the first grapling hook part, you're in for some shit. Controls were bad, enemies were redundant and the foreground was always in the way. Good graphics, sure, horrible game. That is all
Peace

[SoulMaster71]

Gameplay is king, story is crown prince, graphics can either be a chivalrous knight in shining armor or just another smelly serf farming the fields on the fief of some idiotic vassal. The designers have to specifically make the decision to make it a knight though: all too often, they choose the filthy serf approach, all gray and brown and filthy, because it looks more "realistic". Even good games sometimes fall into serf territory: as much as I loved The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, for its king and its crown prince, it's too light on the colors. That's not to say that the serf ever completely ruins a game, since once you're in the castle with the royalty, you won't notice the serf again. Fuck "realism". Reality sucks. We're all tied to a certain place, living out a boring routine. I play games to get out of that serfdom, don't remind me of it with your graphics.

Enough with the feudalism metaphor, gray-brown "realism" sucks and designers need to use less of it. Say what you will about newer Final Fantasy games, but every FF ad I've seen has drawn me in with colorful, vibrant, and unapologetically unrealistic graphics. Yes, I'm an opinionated individual. And yes, your opinion is likely to be different. But when I care about the graphics at all, it's usually that I want more pretty and less gritty.

[Painted-Gorilla]

Then i maybe a semi-graphic whore because surely the gameplay is just as important as the graphics.
even though i do agree the gameplay is the most important.
for exampel the first crash bandicoot game had horrible graphics (Not for its time but) and i still replay it once in a while.
But i dont think these days i would buy a game with bad graphics.
Good graphics is what catches most peoples attention.

[Balazeal]

But why play a game when you can look at a game?

herp herp herp

Really though, I agree with the OP on this. A game doesn't need to be super gritty realistic in order to be fun. Odds are, I'm buying a game to play it, not to stare at it.

[zooos]

I take game play over graphics. When I had my old shitty dell I would run games in lower direct X verision just o increase fps. The funny thing is I got a new computer that runs most of the games on high but I still dumb down graphics to increase my performance.

Castlevania: SOTN still my favorite game.

[BluLime]

Some old games with crappy graphics are considered godly, while games with AMAZING graphics are sometimes considered complete crap.

Graphics are important, but storyline, characters and innovation are what really matter.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

This is why Serious Sam HD is the Perfect Game.

[Snuff]

At 8/23/10 03:13 AM, Frank-The-Hedgehog wrote: A pretty looking game makes a pretty experience.

it's not everything, but it's definitely a huge plus.

this

[Jackho]

Earth Defense Force 2017

That is all.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

Generally PC gamers are graphics whores. You know the graphics for Halo 3, when played on a 40" HDTV or bigger are generally mind blowing. It's because the resolution gets a size up on the HDMI output on most console games, explaining why the games look worse on smaller screens.

Just Cause 2 looks just as good on PC as it does on Xbox 360, maxed out.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

Serious Sam HD looks beautiful when played on a 40" TV too. Admittedly not as nice as the PC version, but nearly as good, more than enough weapon decal.

Just saying.

[SicklySalamander]

graphics don't really matter to me. However I tend to like games with good graphics simply because games with good graphics tend to have more effort into making the game great.
One of my favorite games is half-life 1 and 2.