Crytek's CEO has said graphics account for 60% of a game but Laura argues this belief is wrong and that gamers care more about good looks.
graphics matters a lot to me because if it didnt id be content with a snes
All of it matter to an extent. I don't know why any of it has to be singled out.
I've stated before that I am a gamer from way back, 77' magnovox days to be exact. Every time a new console was about to be released, I would be eagerly anticipating the "improved Graphics" the most. Story, gameplay And recently A.I. are becoming increasingly more important to me. But I still am most awed by the graphics.
One of the main reasons people upgrade. Games with mega graphics but crap gameplay often get found out. A healthy mix is good but some games thrive on their graphics and others on their gameplay. We can enjoy a shawshank redemption and we equally enjoy an avengers. My first computer was a zx spectrum. .. .But I couldn't live on retro city rampage looking games all the time however fun they are. . . I'm spending 5 bills. I expect to be wowed.
If we don't care about graphics, why the heck are we buying expensive TVs ?!!!
Depends. Sometimes, graphics lend to the art style. Look at Dishonored or Borderlands. Physics, frame rate, and various other things factor into the gameplay, so it's hard to say what is included in "graphics". Technological advancements have given us Half-Life 2, Batman: Arkham City, and Metal Gear Solid 4. Then again, we also have games like To The Moon and Thomas Was Alone that work perfectly well with a retro look. It's all relative to the title.
This sort of sentiment is detrimental to the gaming community, not to mention ignorant in a very snobbish kind of way. Graphics are the art in a game, which helps to immerse us in the world, and hardly anybody seems to appreciate it anymore. Far too many artists work way too hard for this growing community of snobs to simply dismiss graphics as something superficial, and it's downright disrespectful. To be honest, outside of simple commentary like "ooh, it's pretty", most people, and apparently that includes the so-called journalists that write these tired editorials, can't even articulate the very principles of design that are directly responsible for the stimulation we feel when we see beautiful art. None of them can tell you a thing about balance, unity, rhythm, space, scale, proportion, color(the ATTRIBUTES, not "ooh those colors are soo purdy"), line, and the many, many other principles that stimulate us from an artistic standpoint. Yet they're quick to educate others with their platitudes and rants about how "gameplay is all that matters", but the very idea is a contradiction. We're approaching the point that people will start taking visuals for granted in the same way photographs are today. Most folks can say that a crooked, out of focus cell phone snapshot of a mountain is a beautiful photo, and then when they see the same scene in a professionally done photograph, the sentiment is the same: "nice pic". Sorry to spoil your fun Mz. Varley, but the reality is that graphics matter to gamers much more than most people know, or care to admit.
Bubbles, sir! :D
well that´s all true but at the end of the day i dont buy games just because they look good like crysis 3 for example. far cry 3 also did looked good but i ultimately bought it because the gameplay was quite interesting unlike crysis 3 which feels exactly like the previous one. graphics and gameplay should have a mutual importance but unfortunately that doesn't happen for many games.
Video games. Regardless, the video portion is still important.... but "graphics" doesn't have to mean "ULTRA REALISM" it just needs to look appealing.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.