Printable View
Graphics are important no doubt but not the most important.For me personally I would drop graphical affects but keep the resolution at the native resolution my screen provides.A great game needs good gameplay above graphics just look at Crysis3,great visuals but nothing really else therefore mediocre.
To me it's a 50/50 game. 50% good graphics and 50% good gameplay.
Example
Scenario 1
Would you buy a game with a great story but it looks ugly, not pixilated just ugly graphics?
Scenario 2
Would you buy a game with awesome graphics but the game essentially is you walking through a art gallery of in game rendering, Crysis but without the guns?
Granted the 2 are extremes but my point is that we need a happy medium. That's why I loved AC IV, I spent my first hour just admiring the beauty of the environments and I also really enjoyed playing the game itself. AC IV without the action and just me going from pretty island to island with nothing to do would be shit, same if the islands looked like a brown blob with a fake looking tree.
Nope, nice graphics is cool but it doesn't make the game. Gameplay does. I'd much rather take average graphics and awesome gameplay to awesome graphics and average gameplay.
Depends on the game type.
I like my games to look graphically pleasing, whilst enjoying a good storyline and immersive gameplay.
Good graphics are not the "Be all, end all" - but rather a nice addition.
Only excuse poor graphic fidelity is if it is an old title.
I guess its too much to ask for both. Oh wait there are games that offer both quite competently...
Dude, I love that pic! Oh man, I still would have played the shit outta Vanquish if it have 16bit graphics :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Glordit
Nope, that's Vanquish, one of the most underrated games ever. It's such a pity no one picked it up, I would love to have a sequel :(Quote:
Originally Posted by FarligOpptreden
As for me I am not a graphics whore but I do like me some eye candy. I would still take story and gameplay over graphics any day but if a game can include all three and not cost hundred of millions to develop, then I am happy with that :p
Good visuals are awesome don't get me wrong, and we all like our games to look as good as they can, but to me, it's definitely not a deal breaker, and I definitely won't buy a game I've already played before just because they've made it look a little better.
- - - - - - - - - - Double Post Merged - - - - - - - - - -
Vanquish was an awesome game. I still don't know why so few people played it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Dude
Just to add a possible parameter to the discussion; are we perhaps not grouping art direction/style and graphic fidelity as one entity? What exactly do we deem a good looking game?
Games like Fez, Bastion, Bit.Trip Presents Runner2: Future Legend of Rhythm Alien, Sonic Generations, even Dust: An Elysian Tail come to mind ;all beautiful games without being tech demos by any stretch of the term.
Personally, I couldn't be fussed about groundbreaking graphics or the like since I place more value on gameplay and story (unless we're talking MP), although I don't necessarily think it's far-fetched to expect a good looking game. I just think the gaming community needs to rethink how they define a good looking game.
Personally, if a game is fun, has a story that grips me (if it's a Single Player game), and presents a good art style whether it's 16bit pixel-art and the like, 2D animated, or even realistic 3D graphics or whatever aesthetic style you go for (which is subjective, I guess), then I'm a happy gamer.
In terms of how a game looks, I just think developers should make the most of their chosen art style, for example Far Cry 3 is no Crysis 3 or Battlefield 3 in terms of graphic fidelity or pushing graphical boundaries, yet it's a more beautiful game IMO. I'm sure gaming history has similar examples where better a good art style looks or feels better than "tech demo" level graphics in terms of immersion.
That brings up another question; what is a good looking game to you? My own answer to that question is a lot more open and flexible than the average answer.
Somewhere, lost in all that rambling, is a point I'm making:D:p:o
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagan
Look at a game like "Papers, Please":
http://papersplea.se/img/Shot11-Jorji.png
Those graphics would never work on a FPS, but for this type of "simulation", it was spot on. In fact, photorealistic graphics would have made the game less immersive.
I love games with good graphics and physics, but I dont only play good graphic quality games, Minecraft for example has me hooked with all the different mod packs etc.
For me good graphics are just a bonus to the gameplay, a game cant rely on just good graphics.