This day and age, its seems that amazing graphics are a requirement in any video game. Along with those amazing graphics, it seems that the fun has kind of dissolved along with it. Its all about graphics and competition during online play.
yes Red Faction is an example
I play team fortress 2 and graphics aren't a problem for me.
i play persona3p and mgsPW on the psp. psp and the DS have the best jrpg's this generation. psp has great sequels and prequels to my fav franchises like jak& daxter, rachet, mgs etc. and graphics are the last thing i have been paying attention to lately. 25 hours deep into MGS:PW and 15 hours into persona3portable and havent touched my ps3 in a month.
Developers need to focus on their story, solid gameplay and a solid feature set FIRST AND FOREMOST! I feel that some games nowadays have too much emphasis on graphics, and when it boils down to it, the game ends up being shallow. That being said, I do believe that graphics can compliment the gameplay.
Graphics have been on a halt this generation due to hardware marketed as next gen. 8800gtx.
DEMONSOULS sais Hi :)
YES. Online gaming and graphics have reached the spilling point. to put it simply... we need a bigger cup
just taken over the minds of those who prefer to spend thier tim ein a shouting match
developers are aiming for that kind of graphics level i mean come on even in previous gens it was about graphics i went from vice city to san andreas and was like wow this game has sweet graphics went from san andreas to vice ity and was like wow this game has bad graphics went from san andreas to gta4 and said the same thing its not that graphics have taken over its just that graphics are apart of human sight soemthing we use every day and now that hd has taken over and everything is clearer now its time for graphics to step up
I still play Quake Live. Soooo graphics aren't everything.
how did that happen? 2nd. no it didn't. see how can visuals take away? they wasn't talking about it last gen so why now? seems to me the other console ain't putting out the steroids looking visuals no more now its a problem. 3rd this is a load of bullshit because the 360 ain't putting out kz2 looking games so why are they complaining? im just saying.
Graphics enhance every aspect of the game and there fore are critical to the experience. Of course, it depends alot on the demographic. The Wii has the worst graphics this gen by far and yet it still sells many consoles and games. The thing doesn't even play DVD's...lol. Those guys love ugly games and probably 80% of them don't have a HDTV. Thankfully, HDTV and the 360 came to the rescue of the hardcore with best looking and playing games ever made. Gears of War set the benchmark with it's incredible release in 2006. It sent poor KZ back to the drawing board ( 2009 ) and forced UC to adopt the still unmatchable cover system. Add a great story, great weapons, great enemies and brutal multi-player and you have a big hit. Gears 2 added to it's lore and Gears 3 will ride out the gen on it's white horse and crown. Halo 3 of course released to great reviews and fanfare and is/was the role model of success. Halo Reach will be great success I'm sure and cement Bungie as one of the greatest dev ever. Lets take a look at some great graphical moments this gen... Gears of " in ur face " Wars...This is the live E3 demo in "09..it's blurry ( the vid not the game...lol ) but the impact was real...next gen is here... http://www.youtube.com/watc... Here's a peak at Gears 2 graphics and enemies..2008... http://www.youtube.com/watc... And the final game in 2011... http://www.youtube.com/watc... Another game that had a huge impact was Bioshock 1 on 360 ( PS3 was downgraded graphically )... http://www.youtube.com/watc... Well I have to add the reason I bought a PS3...The gameplay was a little disappointing, but the great graphics are real...KZ 2 ( 2009 ) http://www.youtube.com/watc... UC 2...not a big fan of this game. I thought the pre-rendered stuff ( in game pre-ren cuts 80 UC 1 Vs 560+ for UC2 ) smothered the game, but it did have nice lighting...( 2009 )..this vid is 75% in game pre-rendered cuts...lol http://www.youtube.com/watc... Mass Effect had a...well...mass effect on games...here's 1 and 2010 GOTY contender, mass 2. http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... This game, like KZ 2, took years to make, but the graphics were very good...Alan Wake... http://www.youtube.com/watc... Halo of course is always at the front in terms of quality...here's a comparison between halo 1-2-3... http://www.youtube.com/watc... Here's the GOTY for 2010...Halo Reach...Epic, indeed... http://www.youtube.com/watc... There are many other games that have more recently added to the list of great graphical achievements but Halo, Bioshock, ME, and Gears redefined this gen years before the others even put out there first games. Next gen starts in 2012, that will be interesting.
no. developers have. They want there games to sell and so everything became hardcore this and that, and the fun games have dwindled away. Smaller developers should take notice and build their games around fun.
All depends really...look at Uncharted 2 for example. Great graphics, but had a great story to back it up etc etc. It all depends on how good the other features of the game is.
I think like you said, it depends on the game and what all they put into it. I'm not downgrading any games today, just seems like gamers view that more than whats behind the graphics. If a gaming company puts real effort into the storyline and features as well as puts on some good eye candy, they that's a well made game. Just to me its seems like society today would rather buy a game because of graphics over game quality.
This is bullshit, MW has crap graphics and sells like hotcakes even though it is the epitome of generic shooters. If a game is good then it is good irregardless of graphics.
Perfect example. Compare the graphics of Call of Duty to Donkey Kong Country. Obviously COD doesn't have crap graphics. Society has been sidetracked by visuals by a long shot over true game quality. But as you said "If a game is good then it is good regardless of graphics" then that's game worth playing. Obviously COD had both areas going for it. Both graphics were good and storyline and online play were all good. Donkey Kong had crap graphics and still sold like hot cakes. It was a good game too even though graphics weren't that great. Proves your statement right. Just don't be blinded by graphics over everything else.
Donkey Kong had and still does have some of the classiest graphics in videogame history.
MW2= Decent Graphics, Decent Gameplay, Glitchfest, Hackfest, Unbalanced guns, random events.
great gameplay without great graphics is FINE great gameplay with great graphics is BETTER
Although a lot of people (mostly little kids) only care about graphics, if you asked them, "would you rather play, a game with great, awesome gameplay but horrible graphics, or a game thats extremely boring and has no point to it, but has the most beautiful graphics?" They would pick number 2, which is just ridiculous.
Fallout 3 has rather yucky graphics but that didnt stop me from lovin (pretty much) every minute of it
Well said. Bubs up.
Look at Crytek.
Have you even played Crysis or Farcry? No? Then stop talking.
think of how much longer games would be if they just die down the graphic a little. ps3 games would be the longest games ever and xbox 360 campaign on the fps would be more dramic well story telling
I'm so tired of this damn question/debate. People act as if 1.A game can't have great graphics and great gameplay, and 2.The evolution of graphical power is something new. It's no surprise that this has gone on for so long during THIS generation. People are always looking for something to cry foul about. Any time a game turns out to be "bad," it's at least partly to blame on the graphics. That isn't even logical. Graphics are a part of games just like sound, controls, accessibility, all that stuff. It just so happens that the graphics tools are pretty much the initial improvement that we pick up on, likely because we're staring at the screen. It is a natural progression for graphics to improve, but please stop with this whole good graphics = bad or even potentially bad game nonsense.
"Today, if there is a single glitch, error, unrealistic visual, the game is given poor ratings." Bullshit. "it seems that the fun has kind of dissolved along with it" I disagree. Go to XBL or PSN.
glitches errors and unrealistic graphics why? because if a console is known to be able to put out such visuals why wouldn't they implement them in the game?
There is a difference between a game having better graphics than another game, and a game having a different visual/art style than another game. Not every game released is going to look "better" than the last. It's not even a realistic idea. And what do you mean by "unrealistic" graphics?
This is stupid Of course not Being a good looking game doesn't make at automatically boring or it gameplay is bad Graphics is considered a part of the gameplay just look why there is no horror games in the NES era??? Because you can't scare people with the 8-bit graphics and those we need a better graphics so the developers can make the games better looking and more realistic Graphics is important and so does the gameplay and games like uncharted and gears proofs that we can get the two if them
Anyone who thinks graphics alone makes a game good is an idiot. However don't hand me SNES style graphics and tell me it doesn't matter. We didn't advance forward just to go back to SMB 1 graphics.As for fun I think people are starting to mistake idiotically simple tasks, mind numbing grinding and leveling up, repetitive gameplay and done to death concepts for fun. Searching through a forest for days and weeks killing the same creatures over and over again just to find a pet that follows you around and does nothing else for example. Not fun.
Yes and no..... Yes because that's all people seem to compare games with...(i.e. Halo has crap graphics and it's a crap game) But at least 100000 people are playing everytime I log onto Halo 3 so I think it's kinda mixed....fanboys care about them....non fanboys care about the game itself
It sure seems that way sometimes, but I'd have to say know. Just look at how weill indie games are doing this gen.
The answer is yes, but only to a degree. Even most here who will say, "No", are lying in some way or another. If you bashed either the 360 or PS3 for having a game that, while still looking good, was sub-HD (like 540P, etc), then you cannot say graphics don't matter. I think GTA: IV was 640P and sooo many were saying it was crap because of that. It's gameplay or story didn't matter. It was crap because it had a few less pixels than the 360 version. Conversely, the same can be said for FFXIII on the 360 (or for everyone who slammed Halo for being below HD...). Today's day and age is all about the graphics. Well, at least that's the first thing that's brought up in the console war era. So, before you all get into your next pissing contest about which multi-plat is better because it has a few more pixels, a few textures that really aren't even noticeable with the speed of the gameplay, or slightly better lighting; remember, graphics don't matter. Before you talk about how much better UC: 2 looks than any other console game...graphics don't matter. The ONLY reason graphics are brought up today as much as they are isn't even to praise the game with said graphics, it's to insult another that's not quite there. A measuring stick of superiority. Pathetic. Over 90 percent of people, whether it be a movie or a game, lose a great deal of attention to detail once their fully immersed in whatever they're doing. The look helps, but after a certain point, the story will take over. You can look that up yourselves... I'm sure I've upset some of the children's feelings around here, so, on with the disagrees. Graphics only need to be good enough that they're not bad and detract from the experience. That's all.
Nice. It's all "gameplay > grapics, until a game like Red Dead comes along. That's why debates about graphics are bull. No one is honest and no one truly wins.
games like killzone look good but play like shit yeah i said it, sue me
I don't agree on the played "like shit" part, but I personally think it isn't amazing as people say it is (gameplay-wise).
are they talking about one specific console? they can't really be talking about the ps3, I have never heard from a fair ps3 gamer said anything negative about the gameplay of the uncharted ratchet or kz2 except for the controls. the 360 on the other fill free because I guarantee that's your console of choice soo....
@gago, you are not alone my friend. Actually I personally think it even looks boring. Sure technically it is impressive but the art design, etc is just so... dull and boring to look at. Sure I will get spammed with disagrees for having my own opinion.
For all the money they poured into it, the return was only a limp corridor shooter as piss poor as Call of Duty.
are there really even games with bad graphics anymore? even shovelware looks good. i personally haven't seen good looking/bad playing games lately, usually games that truly look like ass these days also play like ass. personally i think this debate isn't valid anymore.
................... . Buying everything regardless if it is a quality product or not, because they have been brainwashed into thinking they have to own them all to be a "real gamer" are idiots. . ...................
Crackdown 2 had worse graphics than it's predecessor, yet it was called fun, but it still basically got lowered scores because of it's graphics; if so-called "critics" who whine about graphics taking precedence over gameplay wouldn't also slam games that are fun yet lacked graphical polish, maybe I could take articles like this seriously when game journalists make articles like that (as opposed to this article, which doesn't seem to be written by a games journalist). And, uh; Demon's Souls had great graphics, gameplay, and a great story. So did GoW III Heavy Rain Alan Wake and on and on and on...
Heavy rain and great gameplay? please...
Graphics have definitely taken over from what I have seen. I will still play a game for the gameplay, story, etc but a lot just seem to judge hugely on whether it looks good or not. Kinda makes me miss last gen since the PS2 was weaker than the xbox but it was still more popular because people enjoyed the games on it more (and well maybe since it was cheaper too :p but people did seem to judge games on everything but the visuals before this generation)
Gamers, not N4G fanboys, play games with the most fun gameplay. Look at the top selling games on either platform, good graphics but nowhere near the likes of killzone 2. Point is, gameplay is still the major drawcard in the minds of real gamers
Luckily I can experience AAA gameplay with the best console graphics in one on the PS3. It's a win win for me.
true is simply visuals have gotten very close to lifelike that anything less is utter crap. Is a combination of great graphics, gameplay, a consistent logical story or excellent art desing ambience and atmosphere that make a classic game from a crappy game.
I think they have as well and i think you see that in rpgs today more grafics and less epic story telling.
Nice looking game better than good looking graphics anyday...
A game can still be great fun regardless of its graphical level. It's highly unlikely graphics would affect the developers aims and direction of a title.
depends..... GOW3 has great graphics and gameplay and fun MGS5 has great graphics and gameplay looks awesome AC2 has good graphics but the so called assassin fights like a templar...slow and defensive=sh*t U2 has great grafs but GP wasnt that great IMO..still fun FF13 was gr8 in all aspects so it's not related really :D
"Today, if there is a single glitch, error, unrealistic visual, the game is given poor ratings." Not true. Best example: Red Dead Redemption. That game has some glaring albeit hilarious glitches and it received some excellent reviews overall in spite of that.
You are exactly right on your comment of "Today, if there is a single glitch, error, unrealistic visual, the game is given poor ratings." Overall I think its just personal opinion. I think that a different rating system should be used before giving true ratings that actually make a difference to the general public.
the reason lot's of games suck is piss poor developers and publishers don't give a shit...slap a name on it people will recognize and they will eat it up.... i think people are also too forgivinng of graphics...i think 90% of console games look like SHIT..... exceptions are..... lost planet 1 when it came out bioshock 1 when it came out batman aa Uncharted 1 and 2 Killzone God of war 3 ffxiii (on ps3) other than that....they look like poop
Yup. The entire reason why everyone loves Uncharted 2 so much but are too stupid to realize that it's just a linear shooter.
For me it depends on the game I'm playing. There should be games that have exceptional visuals, while having a story and game play to back it up. Crysis for example, true the story wasn't quite as good as it could have been but the rest shine. There should also be games with good visuals, not anywhere near the top(nor was it meant to be) but has possibly the greatest game play with a really good story. Then there should be games with average visuals, but when compared to the story and game play it simply doesn't matter. RTS games tend to fall into this category. They've never had top notch visuals. Often a DX version or two behind the current times. But the story(usually) and game play(except RA3 and C&C4) are excellent. Imo the only games that should have the -best- visuals possible are simulators. Racing, flying or what ever. Sim games should have the best visuals, period. You can't call your game a simulator and use Nintendo graphics. Couple that with realistic physics and effects and you're golden. The biggest problem I've seen lately is developers are half assing the A.I to spend more time and money on visuals. Visuals that are coming out average, anyway. They skimp on the A.Is ability to actually be somewhat intelligent. While also failing miserably(the biggest flaw) with pathing and "clipping" issues. Really George Lucas? I've got a m.fing Jedi, who can damn near fly, shoot lightning out of his hands and choke a b*tch from a 100 feet away, but I can't walk over a rock the size of a baseball?
http://www.youtube.com/watc... @ $0 cost
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.