This “next-generation” of consoles now has formed an identity. Graphics are no longer the main selling point of a game, look at the Wii, for example, with its Gamecube-like graphics. Instead, there is now a focus on gameplay, and narrative.
Too a certain extent yes. I mean people spent alot of money buying a hd console. If the game can be run on a ps2 or the old xbox then it just shows the game does'nt have quality and it's been rushed. (when I say game I mean disc based ones)
Of course good graphics are important. "Good graphics" aren't just visuals, it also deals with physics, more enemies on screen at a time, longer draw distances, etc. But with that said, there are games like 3D Dot Game Heroes that looks so mind-blowingly beautiful even though the graphics are not - technically - on par with some other games.
Yeah I love 3D Dot Heroes. That game looks gorgeous but of course because it isn't soaked in blood therefore it is teh failz.
ahh i'll repeat. when I say game I mean disc based ones. 3d dot game heroes is a downloadable and the graphics are perfect for that game.
Are they important? Yes. Are they critical? No. Gameplay is all that matter to me.
3d dot isn't downloadable.
3d Dot Game heroes is not a downloadable game. http://www.amazon.com/3D-Do...
3D Dot isn't downloadable, it's a full disc release. That game has beautiful graphics though, colourful and vibrant, but the way that game is put together is outstandingly well done. The water in that game is exceptionally pretty.
Graphics are just another factor, one of many, that make up a game. Gameplay is still the most important. However way you feel that you want to weigh components of a game is up to you. This is why reviews are so subjective and a "universal standard" is never feasible. I value graphics, but they fall behind more important things like gameplay and story most of the time. The fault of graphics this gen is that they are the EASIEST way for fanboys to use to put down other games. Graphic comparisons are easy to do and easy for people to assert one game is superior to another. That's what I hate about graphics so much these days. I also really hate how people act as if a game has the best graphics everything else isn't worth playing. It's the same with scores-- if a game doesn't reach some overwhelmingly high standard it's deemed unplayable. By doing this people have made graphics the be-all and end-all of judging games, and it's something I see a lot. I can still go back to my PS2 and enjoy my PS2 games (I'm playing Okami right now). For some reason some people can't go back, or play on the Wii because they claim HD spoiled them. They value graphics so highly, but I just don't value graphics that way.
WTF, yes it is. That's why we have high end PCs and new graphics cards are still coming out every year.
@doa Size doesn't matter if you don't know how to work it, buddy. Stand their prideful all you want, it means nothing if you can't work it. That's why some women can find more pleasure with their pinky finger than a "huge" Willy Wonka. But enough sex analogies. Graphics have a level of importance, but bigger is hardly better. What is truly impressive is when great graphics don't compensate great gameplay. That is when you have an all-around quality product.
There is absolutely no reason why graphics has to exclude gameplay! If someone busts their @$$ so hard on making the graphics amazing, why would they flop out on gameplay? When I see good graphics, it just gives me the impression that they put a lot of work into the game and it is less likely they skimped on gameplay. It's not like there are many really beautiful cars with low performance!
ask PC gamers!
You just made me facepalm into oblivion. 3D Dot Game Heroes IS a disc based game and the graphics are phenomenal.
I'm currently replaying San Andreas and having waaay more fun with it than alot of this generations games. No, graphics don't matter... good graphics are great and all.. but these days it seems to come at the cost of gameplay variation and game length. And I don't care how much you fanboys scream, KZ2 was a prime example of this ^^
Bad graphic is like sending bad resume for interview.
" If the game can be run on a ps2 or the old xbox then it just shows the game does'nt have quality and it's been rushed." What a load of BC. It could be: Lack of human resources; Time; budget; Doesn't mean there is no quality. The fact people agreed with you just shows how narrowminded you guys are. Aesthetic are important, but as long the rules are bad the rest won't matter.
If I did something and didn't give it enough time, money or devoted enough resources, that means I didn't put in an effort, which means it has low quality! That is practically the definition of quality!
Very true, a lot games have obviously had budget constraints, but are great none the less.
Otherwise i'll stick with my PS2
" that means I didn't put in an effort, which means it has low quality! " So because you have a smaller team, there is no devotion? Or just because there is no Time, there is no effort? Because there is no big budget, there are no great ideas worked out?
the gameplay possibilities, no it was all cgi trailers/new graphical benchmarks. Which everyone thought would be Gears of War, Resident Evil, MADDEN, Killzone2, eveyrthing was sold as visuals. We all are playing generally the same gameplay we've been playing with more immersion. The goal for gaming has been getting closer and closer to photo-real or cartoon-real or fantasy - real imagery. Its inherent that a game has to be good in order to enjoy it. No one argues that you have one or the other. Graphics and good gameplay is what gaming has been about. Art styles, whatever you want to call it. Now that the 360 can't produce things like Uncharted/Gran Turismo/Infamous2/MAG/LBP visually, people started questioning graphics. WHICH IS THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED IN GAMING :: :: :: Making retarded comments like "Id rather have good gameplay than just good graphics." Who the hell wants just graphics w/o gameplay? No one. Please. If thats the case, why not keep playing PS2 and Xbo.. oh wait it was discontinued. But why invest into "NEXT GEN" if you dont care about better immersion? Better sound, better physics, better animation? The Wii appeals to everyone in the world, not a small demographic like the 'hardcore' consoles. If it was targeted towards that audience, it wouldn't nearly be as much of aa success. Its why G movies generally sell better than rated R movies.
Great Gameplay helps me love a game. Great Graphics helps me appreciate it even more.
Why did dude use a Killzone pic? it's not the best looking console game. Anyways ways games that are hyped to godly levels based on graphics that have piss poor or average gameplay will always fall short with consumers.
Yes, but they don't make or break a game. They only polish it and make it the perfect package if the gameplay and story match.
the reason i completed killzone 2 campaign 3 times was the graphics. i never play a game 3 times.
Consoles are not HD as much as they want to market it. 720P is so low end its disrespectful to real HD (1080P+). I always find any console game a huge knock off graphically of PC games due to the 5 year advantage on hardware. Consoles show their age to me graphically, as does even a game such as Killzone, since consoles rely on ALOT of postprocessing effects to make up for its physical limitations on how much GEO can actually be produced. The case is always the same, and with PC hardware being so cheap, its hard for me to take anyone seriously when they act like their console is a graphics god. 360/PS3 fanboys that believe this are blind to reality of hardware, and limitations. Actually, I guess that might actually describe alot of the N4G community wouldnt it?
Come on, you aren't a true gamer. I have a decent PC that could run everything 60 to 150fps on the PC. But there are still games on consoles that's worth every penny and is still a great experience. Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Gears of War 1 and 2, Mass Effect 2, Super Mario Galaxy, Gran Turismo, Forza 3 etc. etc. etc. Sure they aren't 1465466x anisotropic v-synced 554652xcssaascasdcascasasas 342534543p resolution, that doesn't take away that they are still enjoyable games. If all you care about is resolution and how sharp a texture is, then you don't care about gaming. You only care about a sharp texture and resolution. Gaming's first priority should be first and foremost ALWAYS about gameplay. The graphics is the second part of it only. Now I'm not saying games should have terrible graphics, but would you rather have a Amazing game with good graphics or a terrible game with amazing graphics? And graphics doesn't have to boil to just f'in resolution and sharp textures, what about animation and creativity? Naughty Dog proved that with Uncharted 2's level of fluid animation and overall presentation. An example of a terrible game with great graphical effect is Metro 2033. God that game is flippin' boring. But there sure is a lot of magic on it. But guess what? I'd rather go and play Left4Dead 2 which isn't quite the graphical beast but hell it's a lot more fun than that game.
@mitt "Actually, I guess that might actually describe alot of the N4G community wouldnt it?" Coming from the guy stroking his cock about how superior pc's graphically are to consoles that isn't saying much. ps when you can get all pc games running @120fps at 4k resolution for $400-600 then i'll be impressed.
you "love" pc's. you're no gamer, you're a tech junkie point made
if it has great gameplay, SURE! @ zeddy so it wasn't be cause it was fun?! I did it twice because it was so damn epic and fun, the graphics and controlls helped the immersion of course, but above all, it was just so entertaining! =D
i've enjoyed videogames for years.but the better looking a game got,the more immersed i felt towards the game and the game characters.and i've played many. sure story,control,replay ability and fun factor all play a role.but when you add graphics,it brings you closer to the imagination we all have.take for example: i loved spiderman 1 on ps1/dreamcast.but spiderman 2 upped the ante because YOU were spiderman swinging over the city.the story blowed somewhat,the balloon kid irritated me to death.but the gameplay for controlling web swinging was so cool and great,i could do that for HOURS.that comes from having faster processors. http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc... see the difference? not only that,but in spiderman 1,they hid the system's lack of power with pea soup halfway down the the buildings.but in spiderman 2,i could go ANYWHERE.even to the ground.sure i had fun with the first,but the second nailed it.and that because of graphics. i can play many games that have poor graphics.or no graphics and just GO SOUTH or GO NORTH and find the sleeping dragon next to the gold(some of these young kids won't know about this type of game)and try not to get roasted.but SEEING the dragon like in demon souls is a whole different story.and at first,you RUN FROM THAT DRAGON.words don't always create tension as seeing it up close. graphics mean something.it's part of the whole package.it takes gaming to a new level.it's why i await the next advancement.it's not about being a graphics whore.it's about wanting to be more CONNECTED to the GAME.
Generally for me no. I dont buy games just because of graphics but at the same time I do appreciate when devs takes there time to make X type of game look good. It's like my Finance tutor. She doesn't have to be a hot milf but she is. And that's a huge plus.
Good Graphics are important, do not be deceived, we'd all take a pretty, beautiful, fine, or gorgeous woman over an average one (given she had the desired qualities of course). That said however, too much emphasis this generation has been placed on having "Amazing Graphics" to the point where games that aren't as stunning but equally as fun, or even more so that their divine looking counterparts are overlooked, nay, even scorned. It's as if having "good graphics" somehow makes a game perfect and invalidates all issues one could raise, and it's a particularly frustrating trait a certain brand of mentally confused individuals display. When mentioning the quality of a game, the only argument they can come up with, and this happens each and every time, is "Teh grafix". Bottom line, Graphics (which are really just art styles with different things applied like Animations, Physics, and Lighting) are great, especially good looking graphics, face it, EVERYBODY loves them some eye candy, but they should not be the be-all-end-all when it comes to judging a game, and it CERTAINLY should not be used as a weapon against other games. Graphics are simply just part of the package, they should not be the only thing that you can call to mind when a game is mentioned, and if they are, can you really call yourself a gamer?
I agree with what your post said, but too much emphasis this generation has been placed on sales and review score numbers. It's to the point where you can say you like a game and you get laughed at (on the internet) if the game has anything less than an 85 average on Metacritic. I have no problem with developers emphasizing graphics, or even some zealous gamers placing too much emphasis on it. It will simply mean we have better graphics!
Who in the history of gaming has ever claimed that Graphics aren't part of the package? That they would rather have graphics & a bad game? That graphics are the only thing that comes to mind when talking about a favorite game of theirs? Its arguing with a phantom. No one claims graphics make a game or break a game, if the game is good to begin with. A game is a game, it has to be good in order to be enjoyed, graphics do add more to the experience. But you cant have a game that is dreadful yet the graphics make its gameplay better. Arguing Graphics over Gameplay is pointless because there is no opposition to that idea from any sane person. Might as well argue that Oxygen is good, or that fire burns your skin. Some people would like to think that there is some ominous being or group of people claiming that Graphics > Gameplay, but no. Just isn't true.
"No one claims graphics make a game or break a game" How long have you been on this site? Must not be very long. There are WAY too many examples of what you just said no one does on this site for me to list.
To me, nowadays, I can't play old games anymore although I love them so much before. Surely, this new age of gaming changed me a lot. I've been spoiled to great/realistic looking games.
We are paying top dollar for games, why wouldn't we want top graphics?
not all studios have the resources to churn out top of the line graphics, and their work should not be overlooked.
yes....i like for games to have nice graphics
Graphics are necessary but not sufficient for (most games). They certainly help me immerse myself in the game.
Umm... yes. Very, imo.
graphics are important, but it is not the overall factor to make a good game. Whats needed for a good game is Story. Then comes gameplay.
I'd like to see 60fps 1080p become the bare minimum requirement. That's the next big hurdle. I understand that we're always pushing tech to the max, but I prefer smooth games like MW2 and Ninja Gaiden to anything else.
60fps and 1080p bare minimum games, sorry not this gen pal.
yes but i believe gameplay is even more important
yes for me its always been gameplay > anything else also the contols have to be perfect or near perfect or else its no fun
and your avatar is a perfect example of that. epic yarn is sooo beautifully unique
I'd bundle up artstyle with graphics I believe "graphics" here = LOOKING GOOD, regardless of resolution or FPS (damn tech junkies, BAH) but I agree, gameplay > anything else... both together = gem
Graphics are important in as far as if they weren't why even buy a new console? A lot of it is immersion though, I got lost in both Assassin's Creed games not because the gameplay was exceptional, but because the world was just fun to play around in. On the flip side, you've games like Demon's Souls which is an ugly game but people play the hell out of it for gameplay alone. Then you've games like Uncharted which strike the perfect balance between immersive graphics and great gameplay. It's all about balance though and art direction is far more important than brown and bloom all over the place. The art direction in Mass Effect will always get praise from me for that reason, absolutely ADORE what BioWare did with that game.
I liked the way Demon's Souls looked. Fit the game just right.
@PirateThom How is ds an ugly game, grant you not the best looking game, but far from ugly. I really wish people would stop acting as though you have to have incredible gameplay and shit graphics or vice versa. The debate is retarded, because you rarely if ever have both graphics and gameplay at the absolute ends from each other. @title stupid question and stupid author, despite all the idiots screaming gameplay over graphics, if we hadn't made graphical improvements, many gameplay advances would likely have not been possible. This is not rooting for 1 separate team vs the other, why the hell some of you people are confused thinking it's a us vs them thing, i don't understand.
If someone can't play a game because the gfx aren't up to his standards its just pathetic. I understand the importance of visuals. But its as if people dismiss other qualities a game could offer
Sometimes a games graphics can break the experience for me. If I can't get into a game because of a flawed area how dose that make me pathetic? Keep in mind there are a whole bunch of areas that can break a potentially good experience for me, like bad voice acting, animations, game play, controls, story, art direction, and on and on. And besides if all games are $60.00 why not make sure I am getting my moneys worth, I mean if a studio spends $60 mill making a game and another studio spends $2 mill making a game how then how is the price tag the same? Not saying that huge budgets always produce great games, but most of the time it sure as hell seems to help.
@sidar I think your over exaggerating people dropping games solely for bad graphics when design and other factors including personal tastes come into play, that probably wasn't mentioned by the person.
eeeh nah. Just read the comments obviously it needs to be "HD"....Pure irony since most games dont even reach the 720p mark.
good art > graphics. Muramasa looks better then Crysis.
it seems not like the important thing, but the only thing. That's just how I see it when I view how much time is spent learning everything about them. It's sad really, especially when you see some refusing to care about a game unless it's gfx are up to snuff with the rest of them.
As long as it looks good on the eye, I'm fine with it.
Graphics are important to an extend, otherwise we'd all be played text-based RPGs. But there are a lot of great-looking titles that are crappy, and a lot of crappy-looking titles that are fun. Our views of what constitutes good graphics vary with each gen and vary from person to person. One person thinks Reach looks like crap. I think it looks great.
are special effects needed in moives, YESSSS to some extent, good graphics are needed to create the atmosphere which is actually believable and their arent many other ways of doing that, i would consider art style would go under graphics as im really talking about the visual fidelity of the game.
Of course not, thats why you never see any of those comparison treads hitting the front page.
I love LittleBigPlanets graphics beautiful yet simple.
If a game looks like utter crap, no matter how good the gameplay, that game will not be looked upon as a good game. There is no way around this. In this gen, graphics are very important. But with graphics we also have to think about art style etc etc. Either way, visuals, are a very important part of a game, and if they suck, I guarantee that game will be considered a flop.
I think they have been made too important now tbh. As an example, compare Morrowind to games now. Morrowind is by no means a pretty game, but it's definitely worth playing, but many people that have played Oblivion first, or even any game in the past comple of years will flinch at it's graphics and just discount it because it isn't as good looking as Oblivion. I'm not saying that everybody will do that, but a fair number will. Now, *in my opinion*, Morrowind is a game that is far greater than many games this gen and because of the attitude I described above of, "Yuk. It's ugly, I'm not gonna even try that!", many potentially great games will suffer and not get as much attention as they deserve. It's a weird no man's land between, "Yay! Retro arcade graphics!" and, "Oh sweet, it looks almost like real life!"
I like good graphics but I love good gameplay. Give me both whenever possible but if you make me choose, I will choose good gameplay every time.
Gameplay>Graphics To a extinct.