How important are graphics? Bethesda reckons very

IMO,
There is a distinct difference between two games - where one looks good and the other looks AMAZING.
In that comparison, the graphics wont make or break the game.

Then there is the comparison of a game that looks like a 90-year old maggot-infested monkey's ass and another that looks good/amazing/ok/reasonable/etc.
In that comparison, visuals really can break the game.

Are visuals a factor in games' purchasing decisions? Surely.
Are visuals THE factor for making or breaking a title's success? Not really. But it can have a massive impact if you totally screw it up...
 
graphics is important, but so is :

1) properly tested
3) properly optimized
3) decent story

i don't like a game that looks ZOMG, but runs shit or a game that looks ZOMG and is a simpleton.
 
You know what, I still love my old RPGs, dated graphics or not-hey, I even play games on my cellphone.
 
I can play old games all the time with dated graphics, but it is always nice to have a decent game with amazing graphics to play in between.
 
TBH yes they are important to me, but in a distinctly different way. For me it's all about the art design, good art can make practically any game look good. A fancy graphics engine with dull design still looks dull, no matter how many fancy shaders you are using.
 
We have reached a point in gaming where all games should have average to good graphics. Graphics pushes the technology barrier. Good graphics can make an average game a good game.
 
I still say we hit the "realism" peak with games like half life 2, ever since than games haven't really offered much, if any noticable enchancements to making things look more realistic. Not even Crysis did anything other than proving how cheap really people are. (More pollys = more sales)

I'd much rather go play Wolfenstein 3D with it's pixilated graphics than struggling with game stinky pile-O-poo that is Blops
 
Blackhand said:
He's not saying graphics are all that matters, he's saying that they do matter. I agree.
Click to expand...

Yeah agree as well, they do matter to me, maybe more or less than the next person, but they matter to me. But each to their own as it were. I tried played Baldurs gate a couple years ago and just couldn't get into it, even though i know its a game i would have loved to play when it came out. Same with diablo, played it the other day... yeah pretty surprised how bad it looks now days.
 
To be perfectly honest, I'd say it's the same as you'd find in most relationships. People always say "Looks don't matter" but really. They do, would you go to a morbidly obese chick and get to know her? Just incase she has a "great personality" Nha shit man! You go for the pretty girl and hope she's awesome.

Well games work the same these days, First you need the looks and then the gameplay/story. You can't have one and not the other any more. It's either a package deal or no go.
 
How about this? I'd rather go play Return To Castle Wolfenstein than try and puke my way through BFBC2 or MW2 again, It just better. Why? Because I don't give 2 and a half snots about graphics. I'll give kudos for something that looks good like PoP 2008 and Borderlands, but that was more artistic than trying to look as photo realistic as possible that everyone else is trying to get at and causing more problems of all kinds than anything else in the process.

What hooked me on Prince of Persia? That name and the awesome amounts of fun tied to that name from the previous 3 games that transfered to the new one. Borderlands? The phrases "First Person Role Playing Game" and "Over 30 hours of play time". I only really heard about the art direction a good while after I was already decided.

Why I hate Crysis? They concentrated on absolutely nothing but trying to squeeze out as much graphics as possible into the game and only when they were half way done and just about to release, did they staple a clunky gameplay concept and poorly thought out story to each of it's sparkling ears.

Far Cry 2. Yeah, it looks great, makes really feel like you're in the African Savannah. Doesn't make it any less snore worthy, does it?

If I wanted to look at an ultra realistic jungle, I'd go look at photos of... Wait for it. WAAAAAIIIIIIIIIT for it.... a jungle.
 
Last edited:
Hey guys I was just reading up on some of the things you guys had to say and I must say this is a pretty good topic as for my take on it games to me where all about fun yeah if they look good it's a plus but there are just some games you just have to give credit to on the fun factor for exp. Scott pilgrim vrs the world not an old game and they took it back to the days of the bit games I mean you can literally count the pixels on the characters but it was fun as hell because it plays like the classic arcade games and then you have games like I don't know uuuummm socom confrontation where your like "AWW MAN THIS GAME LOOKS AWESOME" and then to your surprise sucked complete road kill squirrel nuts not saying that new games aren't fun cause there are a few good one but still now a days they seem to focus more on looks more than fun
 
Graphics matter up to a point, beyond which, it does not improve anything but more and better. The further you get beyond this point, the quality of the graphic content itself, and not how many pixels, becomes way more important ...

A million pixels and crappy content is crappy. 250 000 pixels with quality content is much preferred ...
 
I say too much revenue is spent on games to make 'em purdy, leaving a big gaping hole where the gameplay should be. But hell, I love good looking games, it makes logical sense, but I also see the downsides.
 
They are irrelevant to me for gaming purposes. Story trumps all for me and gameplay to a lesser extent.

GFX matters when benching for me since the better looking the harder the game will push the system but for gameplay it won't make a difference to me buying or not buying the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top