Graphics.. worth discussing?

[Bobs_Hardware]

I really havent put much thought into it, i typed it up in 10 mins, and my thoughts were all over the place so i left some points out and had many of them out of order

Plus this part of the forum is really slow tonight..

I thought of this topic after a discussion with an unnamed board member here who claimed it was "sad" to be arguing about which game has the superior graphics, game on Console X, or game on Console Y.

So my question; is it "sad" to discuss/debate over which games on which console has the better graphics?

I say its a great discussion point, and of an interest to people who like to think that game A has better graphics than game B.  Or maybe it goes deeper than that, Console X promised this, but Console Y does it better, Console X is doing this, Console Y isnt, but still looks just as good.

Graphics important to the overall impact of the game?  Yes.  Why do we get better graphics cards for out PC when the game works at 15 fps with no detail?  Graphics do infact include framerate and colour depth and more.  These things can play a factor in the game.  While playing GT3 i found points where a turn was not recognisable enough to even recognize it in time, why is TimeSplitters 2 going to lengths to be a great FPS at 60fps when Halo is proclaimed the best console FPS (generally) at a mere 30 fps?  Because these things matter.  They are important to some people.  Even if it is only of slight importance, it is very intriguing to discuss such things, as far as i am concerned.

Even something as artistic design is interesting to discuss.  Or perhaps the different techniques developers are using to achieve optimum effects.

Then again, why is the GBC or GBA or any hand held popular?  Why am i currently hooked on Final Fantasy 5 and 6 and eagily awaiting for my local EB to re-stock in Golden Sun.  Why was Vib Ribbin so popular and critically aclaimed (in some circles)  Why is retro gaming so lucritive?

While its not important to the quality of a game on a grand scale, it is important enough to put a lot of effort into it, graphics alone can sell some games.  So i believe that alone makes it enough of a reason to actually put discussion and even \'debate\' into the graphics of a game.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Graphics for me aren’t really that important..
Sure they are nice to look at for a while, but when you get used to them and find the gameplay boring you are just going to lay down the game.. (At least I would)

Bouncer was a very pretty game, great graphics.. Nice artwork ect.
It was nice to look at for the first hour.. Then you discovered the poor gamplay.. Ugh.
Watch cutscene.. Fight, watch cutscene with alot of blah blah blah.. Run, fight and so on.

I think I played it 2-3 hours.. And I haven’t completed it yet.

[Bobs_Hardware]

the question wasnt

"do graphics matter when choosing a game?"

it was along the lines of "are graphics an interesting topic to discuss?"

now i know for a face that you Fastson love arguing/discussing graphics...come on boy...admit it...come on *cracks whip*

Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
the question wasnt

"do graphics matter when choosing a game?"

it was along the lines of "are graphics an interesting topic to discuss?"

now i know for a face that you Fastson love arguing/discussing graphics...come on boy...admit it...come on *cracks whip*

Ya.. I got distraced by a nude woman walking outside... :shy:

Ok.. Yes its pretty fun arguing.
But it aint more important than gamplay when it comes down to the games :clown:

Its interesting to see how each console improves in this area.

In answering the question "do graphics make for an interesting topic of discussion" I will say most definitely yes, they do. My reasons for saying so are:

1) Game play was [in the beginning] far from stellar. Back when you ran a large yellow mouth around a screen (that never changed) eating dots and ghosts, only to find yourself later upgrading to a small ship that swung side to side on the bottom of your screen shooting what looked liked aliens as they approached you at the speed of Heinz 57. The story lines have gotten better, but the more improvements to the graphics, the more I wanted to play.

2) I\'m the type of guy that likes to hear about statistics. I especially enjoy it when they make sense. When I hear about the graphic enhancements that each console maker has made, it makes me read on. I want to know more.

3) Realism. One word. I love to see how realistic the graphics can be. How close to reality the game can look. I love it when your a squint away from a race car looking like the real thing, and I will love it even more when you can\'t decipher the "game play" image from the real image. I love realism.

These are just a few reasons why I think graphics are a great topic of discussion; there are more of course - many more. But I\'m sure, as time goes on those reasons will surface.

IMO graphics is eveything at lest 80%.  I just can\'t stand playing a game that really looks bad and have great gameplay.  If I wanted real gameplay, I would play RPGs games.  But I don\'t buy or like any RPG games. It\'s just not my speed and adventures taste.   IMO, eveyone buys a new systems for the up-grade in graphics.  If graphics means nothing to me I would just be still playing my PSone.

80%, no wonder all you do is talk about the xbox:rolleyes: .  Well I can still play games from the NES and have fun, graphics don\'t matter to much to me, gameplay is way more important

Is this thread about how much more important Graphics are to game play? I didn’t think so. A game is made only good through its graphics AND game play. A game can have less than stellar graphics, but have a compelling story line (and visa versa) and still get a good rating in my book. It\'s good when you get the best of both worlds. Those are the 9\'s and the 10\'s in my list of favorite games.

Ok well here is what i think. Graphics are great, but......... they are more like an addition to me. I luv playing my genesis and nes and the graphics suck compared to now. Sure they were good then but now its a whole new ballgame and when ppl like microsoft come out sporting their spiffy new xbox i say that looks kinda kool, but when they give me something like a wrestling game that is the best looking game ever i wont give a $#!t because first i dont like those kinda games and second because the gameplay sux! I mean would you play school 2003 because it looked like real life? If you would then your an idiot. Has anyone played skate and destroy (thrasher) for ps? I luved that game almost more than i loved thps2 because the game overall was just so stellar. When all you have is a game like doa3 with some pretty graphics then after you play it for a few hours what do you have left??? I rather play street fighter alfa 3 with my cuzin. W/e i rest my case.

Graphics and Gameplay are 50/50.  

Just like women.  Personality is a must, but if they aren\'t attractive, sadly, I\'m not interested.  Personality can go a long way to improve attractiveness, but like good gameplay, it can only do so much.  This may seem shallow, but if there is no attraction, what\'s left?  By the same token, a complete knockout is thrilling for a while, but if there\'s nothing else about her that is desireable, I don\'t hang on long.

With a lot of developers releasing high res pics of there games with FSAA (*cough* Xbox *cough*) even though the final version won\'t be/have either, graphics are a lot less interesting to talk about IMO.  We can\'t have pic wars like we used to because of the developers releasing touched up pics.

For example, we all remember how beautiful Rallisport looked before.  The pics were extremely high res and had perfect FSAA.  The latest pics, shown at a normal resolution and without the FSAA look a lot worse.




Remember how Microsoft said teh Xbox has FSAA built into the hardware?  He he he, yeah right.  This is from the official Rallisport forums:

FSAA is not a free feature. It costs a developer memory, fill rate, and frame rate.

For RSC, balancing where our memory was allocated was a challenge. With 64MB, you need to squeeze in the code you want to execute, any music/sound effects you want to play, and load up whatever textures/meshes you want to display. All games struggle with memory usage in this way and you end up reducing texture resolution, using lots of compression, using lower bitrates for sounds or fewer different sounds, and so on, just to fit.

FSAA requires a few MB of memory just to turn on the feature. So any game that spent its memory on visual/audible detail like we have, has to decide whether to reduce that level of detail to add FSAA. It\'s not as simple as giving up some frame rate...if it was, we would have considered shipping a 30fps/FSAA mode as an option.

Back to my point, graphics are not worth discussing until the game is actually released, because up until that time, we don\'t know for sure how the game will look.  And by that time, it\'s not nearly as fun to discuss.  Graphics are starting to get to the point of diminishing return.  I think that in the next 5 years, developers will change their focus from graphics back to gameplay where it belongs.  Then we can all have debates on what game plays better.

Graphics for me aren’t really that important..
Sure they are nice to look at for a while, but when you get used to them and find the gameplay boring you are just going to lay down the game..

BS!!!  Then why don\'t you go play your SNES or Atari. If what you said were really true then we would still be playing with our SEGA Geneses and stuck in the 16-bit era.

Graphics are extremely important, granite the game that a company’s them must be good as well, and other wise it\'s just eye candy. The more realistic the graphics are the more involved we get into the game, especially if it\'s a really well made one.

Originally posted by IronFist
I think that in the next 5 years, developers will change their focus from graphics back to gameplay where it belongs.  Then we can all have debates on what game plays better.

LOL!! 5 years, developers will change their focus from graphics back to gameplay?  When hell freezes over this will happen.  IMO, graphics will just get better and better.  Do you think the PS3 will have bad graphics and great gameplay?  


Do you still think that MS post bad screens shots?  You better see Wreckless on your tv because it looks much better then a screen shot.  

I think that in the next 5 years, developers will change their focus from graphics back to gameplay where it belongs. Then we can all have debates on what game plays better.

LOL, I can\'t believe you just said that, what a JOKE! Graphics is what is driving the whole business in video game companies. Why do you think SONY corp. and NVIDIA and the rest are spending millions on creating new graphics chips that allow us to close in the gap between game\'s and reality

Matter of fact I actually agree with 90% of your statement, the flaw in it, your belief that this will happen in 5 years. Developers, I\'m sure will totally shift from graphics to game play when we have chips that create graphics that look just like real life or close enough. Only then will there be no real need to but all there energy into graphics as opposed to game play. Do keep in mind I’m not saying that they are not paying attention to game play at the moment, they defiantly are, just that I can only name a handful of developers out there that fit that profile. The rest of them are lazy ass graphics/eye candy horrors that just want to sell their games on looks.

Wow, it\'s uncanny! But I got one question. When they have perfected the issue on graphics, and the game play is so compelling that everyone in the world plays video games in there free time...what happens next? :eek: