The darkly comedic strategy RPG continues.4.18 / 5.00 24,486 Views
Idle your way through the history of a Hero!3.94 / 5.00 89,167 Views
Help Andrew raise $5000 ASAP or else his inn will be demolished.3.78 / 5.00 7,647 Views
Why does everyone care so much about how a game looks rather then the gameplay and story?
I mean,I like good graphics but you shouldn't downgrade a game cause of it. It's really annoying to see people argue over something that hardly affects the game at all.
People are always saying about new fps's,"I wish it looked more like battlefield or then it'd be good."
What the fuck seriously? Old gamers, Did any of this matter back in 1990? I'd like to know.
I admit, graphics do add to the over all feel to a game but good graphics doesn't necessarily mean cutting edge ultra high detailed graphics. There are some 16-bit games that I think look nicer than some HD Xbox 360 games. Not nicer in terms of the level of detail, but nicer on the eye. Colourful and of a good art style.
Some games do look dreadful and it can put me off wanting to play them, but these games tend to look exceptionally bad. I can live with sub par graphics, but not if they're absolutely horrific.
Although I wasn't gaming in 1990 (I wasn't even born) I'm willing to bet that graphics were still important. Some models of the Genesis have "High Definition Graphics" printed on the console. Why would they do this? Because people liked better graphics.
BBS + Chat Moderator - Feel free to send me a PM if you have a problem!
Want to instant message me? [ Skype - DeanNewgrounds ]
I pay attention to the graphics of a game.Of course it doesn't play a major role to my judgment whether the game is good or not.E.g I like TF2 more than CoD.CoD has quite good graphics but the gameplay is what I like in a game,that's why I like TF2 more.
Bitte meine beliebte Nazi mods, keine bannerino, weil ich auch eine Nazi Scwein bin! Danke schön
Depending on what game you want to make, it might be good to have suitable graphics for that game. A little more light hearted game like Legend of Zelda windwaker might be cutting edge technology or look very real at all, but sure does give a good feel of them game and makes it look beautiful even though it's not cutting edge reality graphics.
But then a game like a modern day fps which they themselves claim to be "war simulators", then it very important that it should look as real as possible. They are trying to convert something serious to you as player, so therefore they can't have a graphic set like in windwaker. Because that would totally kill mood of "full on real combat simulation).
So what I'm I saying? Graphics are tool. A tool to used to convey to overall tone of game.
Oförstående Svensk Rappakalja
At 5/30/12 09:35 AM, K1LL80Y wrote: What the fuck seriously? Old gamers, Did any of this matter back in 1990? I'd like to know.
Yes. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that it was even worse back then. You had entire marketing schemes based off of the systems being 16-bit and having better graphics than their opponents. Seriously, take a look at some old commercials for the Super Nintendo and Megadrive/Genesis or the Atari Jaguar and pay attention at how often the graphics are mentioned in comparison to the actual gameplay, it's ridiculous.
it depends on the game genre, for example a rts (strategy) is ok with "bad" graphics because you see your units from afar and unit faces are not important, in games where you see characters from close (shooters, rol, etc), graphics start taking a higher rol.
that`s why old rts are better than new ones, because the new ones are making aside the gameplay and adding graphics which dont add much to the game (see Empire Earth3, Starcraft 2, etc)
Its only rape if you say no.
Say no to rape.
Graphics are always nice. But unless a game is a 2D platformer/sidescroller, it should try to have modernized graphics. I at least want to be able to know what I'm looking at.
I care about art direction more than I care about graphics. I wish more games would do cool things such as "Kirbys Magic Yarn" and "Yoshi's Story". The graphics weren't amazing, but they were unique which is even better.
For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.
I have never seen someone badmouth or praise a game just because of graphics, unless they were being satirical... towards a demographic that doesn't really exist. I think that's just some fallback response gamers make when someone prefers a generic FPS over some pretentious pseudo-adventure about nothing.
In fact, it might not even be a graphics thing, it might be an aesthetics thing. It might just be that some gamers find Call of Duty to look more fun than, say Journey, or Shadow of the Colossus. They take one look at the cover, maybe they look at the back, and they pick that one up instead. Why? Not because of how nicely defined the sprites are, but because the entire game looks nicer.
Of course, you're just going to misread my post, probably intentionally, and then claim that I'm the cancer killing games, or some shit.
At 5/30/12 10:36 AM, tonypar16 wrote: I pay attention to the graphics of a game.Of course it doesn't play a major role to my judgment whether the game is good or not.
Wait, what? CoD's graphics are outdated as fuck. While the same goes for TF2, to an even larger degree, TF2 has a far stronger and more unique set of aesthetics, which makes up for it - it's designed in a manner that makes it look simple rather than outmoded.
My personal sentiment on the matter is that, while they're clearly not the most important aspect of a game, they certainly help out a lot, especially in the immersion factor (although the word 'immersion' is thrown around far too much, admittedly). The thing is, nobody claim that they play games simply for graphics, and threads like this complain about the issue as if that is exactly what happens. Developers don't flip a coin and use that to decide whether to have either good gameplay or good graphics - the two things compliment each other, not conflict.
At 5/30/12 07:53 PM, SpiderTaco wrote:At 5/30/12 05:11 PM, Chdonga wrote: I thought Rogue Warrior was pretty coolYou're the cancer killing gaming or some shit.
>implying it wasn't the best game ever
Iggy shiggy diggy doo dah.
To me it depends on the genre if I'm playing a reasltic fps/ action based game then I expect "cutting edge" Graphics because real life is very detailed. If I'm playing games that have a stylized theme or games targeted to children then I'm not going to expect attention to detail on the level of a realistic FPS. Look at the fighting genre some of the best fighters have dated or abstract looking graphics particularly DBZ fighters like budokai 3 and tenkachi 3.
How about we all shut up and just play the game? That's what I say.
At 5/30/12 09:59 PM, SneakyGameBoy wrote: How about we all shut up and just play the game? That's what I say.
But that makes too much sense.
No one should be allowed to play games I don't like. And if they do, it has to be for the same reasons I'd play a game.
I just hate it when people say that older games have "bad graphics" and new games have "good graphics", based solely on their age.
Some old games had bad graphics for their time, many didn't. Good pixel art still looks amazing. Some new games have shit graphics. The graphics for big new games usually aren't outright ugly but they can be pretty bland, have a bad style, or just be uninspired as hell.
Graphics do matter, before you play it you have to see it first. They play a small role, but a role they do play and can have an overall affect on the game.
Also in the 1990's, you forget that the N64 and PS1 debuted and gamers as well as developers and publishers praised graphics like crazy.
Graphics was always considered a big thing in gaming, particularly during the days of the SNES vs. Sega Mega Drive, and even more so now. Of course, gameplay and controls are a lot more important than graphical power in any game, but with that said, that's no excuse for game companies to sacrifice having good graphics for the sake of gameplay or anything else, because that's would be considered half-assing it, and in this day and age, that would crucify any game to the point of being a niche title at best, and avoided at worst. True, it does depend on what game is being made and what style, but the rule should still a hard rule across the board, and what most game studios adhere to now.
Back in the early 90's, you could be able to get away with having average to sub-par graphics as long as everything was good, partly due to the fact that there wasn't as much media to gaming as there is now. Nowadays, with the Internet and more gaming material out there, the graphics whores and detractors now have a platform to say whatever they want about how a game looks, and go from there.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
Truth be told, I don't really care how good graphics are, in the sense of realism. Mostly, I care more about how the graphics fit with the style of the game, as far as visuals are concerned.
At 5/30/12 05:11 PM, Chdonga wrote: A lot of stuff,most self-criticizing.
Nawh man I get your point, I've made that mistake before.
Also to everyone talking about genre why is that important? I could play a brand new shooter that looks like star wars battlefront and still like it if they gameplay was good. Maybe I was just raised to games weird but whatever,seems like everyone is to nit picky with their vidja.
At 5/30/12 05:11 PM, GuerrilleroHeroico:
This isn't important but look at our level,we're twinsies :D
It's not about the resolution that's important; it's how you use it. If you straight up ripped the textures from Halo Reach on looked at them on a PC, they would look terrible because they weren't meant to be viewed at a certain screen resolution; this is the exact same reason why Halo PC has fuzzy textures - they were direct ports. Let me give a better example:
Take a previous gen console game and emulate it on the PC; the textures are not as nice as you think. All those old consoles rendered at 480i for the most part; trying to scale it up to a 1080p monitor without making it look bad is very hard. Silent 2, for example, has some fairly impressive graphic effects considering the hardware. It was able to do this through creative use of fog and night to make the required render distance very short, allowing for decent geometry and real-time, soft shadows.
I wouldn't mind the eternal "graphics war" if the developers would just optimize their shit. I just played Crysis 2 for the first time on my PC, and it worked great at Extreme/Ultra settings. Crysis 1 - wihout the graphical optimization community - at the highest settings lags a bit. And don't even get me started on Metro 2033.
Optimization goes along way.
As for having graphics instead of an actually good game with a story and solid gameplay, that is just a textbook example of misguided budget.
I'm to tired to even start on that.
Playing a game for it's graphics is like watching porn for the story. Sure, it helps, but at the end of the day it's still lesbian sex.
Besides, some games are supposed to have certain graphic styles. Minecraft and Borderlands for example.
In my opinion graphics should only come second to gameplay the only good graphics for me are graphics that make the game more complete and not the game itself
Does anyone actually read these?
I didn't spend $570 on a RadeonHD 7950 for nothing. Yes, graphics make a difference, as long as their optimised well.
At 5/31/12 02:31 AM, The-iMortal wrote: I didn't spend $570 on a RadeonHD 7950 for nothing. Yes, graphics make a difference, as long as their optimised well.
My stepdad bought some fancy shit last year and I still don't see a difference...
Graphics don't really matter to me to be honest, to pick on how the detailed a surface of rock or how it doesn't look well wrapped around on the polygons is kind of stupid to just a few small notices,the game was bought solely for the reason to be played. Just give me settings to Change the Brightness, Contrast and Gamma and maybe a little bit of anti aliasing just for the case the text looks to damn small for the resolution I chose to run it under , I'd be fine with that.