Quantcast
Graphic Whores forgot what gaming really is about

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Graphic Whores forgot what gaming really is about

dtewi said:
Skeeuk said:

heres a good example.

mario galaxy as it is

or

mario galaxy with same gameplay but with ninja breadman grafix?

its clearly obvious which you would rather have.

grafix are important, in fact its the first thing you look at when ever a new gen is out.

obviously gameplay comes first, but grafix are deffo a factor to look at.

thus games on ps3 and 360 are far better than on other consoles

heres a good example

crysis as it is

or

crysis with same graphics but with halo-quality gameplay?

its clearly obvious which you would rather have.

gameplay is important, in fact its the first thing you look at when ever a new gen is out.

obviously graphix come first, but gameplay is deffo a factor to look at.

thus games on wii are far better than on other consoles

I thought Crysis has normal weapons unlike Halo sci-fi weapons.



Around the Network
Skeeuk said:

heres a good example.

mario galaxy as it is

or

mario galaxy with same gameplay but with ninja breadman grafix?

its clearly obvious which you would rather have.

grafix are important, in fact its the first thing you look at when ever a new gen is out.

obviously gameplay comes first, but grafix are deffo a factor to look at.

thus games on ps3 and 360 are far better than on other consoles


Except this comes down to what I've been saying the whole time, it's the team not the power of the console since that could be turned into, hey do you want Killzone 2 or Killzone 2 with Shellshock 2 graphics...

Thus games are better if they're made by teams with talent



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

dtewi said:
Skeeuk said:

heres a good example.

mario galaxy as it is

or

mario galaxy with same gameplay but with ninja breadman grafix?

its clearly obvious which you would rather have.

grafix are important, in fact its the first thing you look at when ever a new gen is out.

obviously gameplay comes first, but grafix are deffo a factor to look at.

thus games on ps3 and 360 are far better than on other consoles

heres a good example

crysis as it is

or

crysis with same graphics but with halo-quality gameplay?

its clearly obvious which you would rather have.

gameplay is important, in fact its the first thing you look at when ever a new gen is out.

obviously graphix come first, but gameplay is deffo a factor to look at.

thus games on wii are far better than on other consoles


Actually as a singleplayer shooter, Crysis is better than Halo gameplay-wise.

And btw. counter-trolling (your last sentence) isn't better than trolling (SKeeuk's last sentence)



Barozi said:

Actually as a singleplayer shooter, Crysis is better than Halo gameplay-wise.

And btw. counter-trolling (your last sentence) isn't better than trolling (SKeeuk's last sentence)

I wasn't trolling. I didn't mean that sentence in any way.

I was mocking his post.



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

I get what you're saying and agree, OP. Mind-blowing graphics are amazing, but they don't make a game good. On the heirarchy of what makes a game good, graphics go into the "icing on the cake" category. Meaning they can make a game better by being better (and by graphics I don't neccesarily mean poly count or lack of jaggies, because well done 2D games or a well done DS game is "better" than a crappy done 2D game or DS game, and it may not have to do with resolution or jaggies) but they are not a core part of what makes that game good. Of course there is a baseline, I mean if you can't tell the difference between your character and a tree, well that's going to affect the gameplay.

I really think it's a function of the fanboy spazgazm that is the interwebs. Or I like to call it "You piss on my leg and I'll piss on yours, and we'll see who gets wetter."



Around the Network

Great graphics are just another piece of the pie.  Let's face it,  many of the games at the time of their release that were considered to be 'great' games not surprisingly were considered to have 'great' graphics at their time as well.

For people to say that graphics aren't every bit as important as any other part of a game are just delusional or trying to justify their exclusive Wii ownership. 

As another another poster mentioned earlier in the thread,  otherwise we would just be working on gameplay innovations for our square block character.

 

Graphics matter just as much as any other part of the game.  Not one person on here could deny that Super Mario Galaxy 2 wouldn't be a 'better' game with better graphics.  Period. 



dtewi said:

Graphics are very conducive to a good atmosphere.


I subscribe fully to this. Graphics, music and design are all conducive to a good atmosphere.

However, and this isn't directed toward you dtewi, I think it would be rather silly to put any sort of wieghting scale on these factors. I think it's also silly to put any sort of weighting on the comparison of gameplay and graphics - two wildly different aspects of gaming that typically are necessary for an enjoyable gaming experience.

These discussions are nearly always fruitless as they typically are devoid of context (some genres lend themselves more heavily toward atmoshere as opposed to crisp, tight gameplay - the opposite is true of many genres as well. Obviously there is an incredible amount of middle-ground here) and completely lacking in consideration of what the gaming experience means to the individual. Most importantly, nearly everyone tries to fragment games into mutually exclusive aspects and compare them.

 

Regardless of the medium, you'll always have the Dorian Gray - type. Whether it'd be realism, cartoony, or whatever the taste, aesthetics are the trump card. Several games come to mind, Big Fish - a movie, immediately comes to mind for me. Some may see it as shalow, I however, take no issue with some enjoying (or even preferring) something for simply aesthetic preferences. Some just place more value in that than they do with gameplay.

I think many of us look at this as far too simplistic - which would you prefer? a gorgeous game with virtually no gameplay; or an ugly game with exquisite gameplay. Given the technology we have and our immediate access to information , we're rarely faced with having to choose between two absurd extremes anyway. Frankly, it's a waste of time even discussing it. I think it simply comes down to what one values more to their gaming experience: atmosphere (a culmination of music, graphics and design) or gameplay.

Though it seems absurd to me, at first thought, for one to claim graphics as a more valued aspect of gaming than gameplay, but I think a legitimate claim can be made.



lmao..

 

You haven't experienced it like we have.. there are games that the graphics make the game itself a vastly superior experience to anything out there in the same genre..

 

For example Killzone 2.. has terraficly realistic Storms over head of you in additon to a wind of flying dust/particles as you walk, and the rumble being pushed by that wind itself.. it's just a magnificant art istic experience.. and I honestly say if KZ2 didn't have that feeling from its graphics, it would be a piece of shit. Call me a graphics whore, but FF XIII's beauty is truely what makes it unique.. and it's story is good, but it's graphics just make you want to play it..

 

I never had a PS2, and I have always been a graphics lover.. you can't say "oh who cares about graphics" because sometimes the graphics do actually make the game.. as ignorant as that sounds, it's true. Look at Flower.. Look at pixel junk eden..  what would those games be without there magnificent graphics style?



 

mM

best thing about ps3 exclusives is that they have the best graphics and be a great game



mirgro said:

This thread is a perfect example of just how immature video games are, and especially their fans.Think of this as a good example

Avatar was trash, but it was entertaining trash.

The Godfather part 2 was a good movies.

Any person who has somethign ebtween his ears, and is mature enough, will be able to tell you the above statements.

However it seems that in video gaming etertaing trash is absolutely always equal to quality. Which is very hilarious and speaks volumes about the type of people who play games.


Avatar was a good movie an underlining "save the planet, dont destroy the forests" moral. The reason most people dont like it is because they dont see this and see it as a pointless action flick with random love scenes. If anything its a movie that has been directed by someone who played way to many old school shooters and watched quite a few animes and rolled it into a movie to spread protectionism of our greenlands.

I haven't seen any Godfather movies... so couldnt tell you if its good or not.

And don't judge a person's intelligence based on their movie tastes either. I myself loved all the Spiderman movies, but I also love Gran Torino, Across the Universe, No Country for Old Men, and The Green Mile. Just because I enjoy the stupider movies doesnt mean I dont enjoy the artistic and/or highly moral based movies. Its all about taste and enjoyment. I'm pretty sure someone like Mr. Steven Hawking would, if he could, enjoy Crysis as much as he would a movie like The Watchmen, and we know he is a very intelligent man.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453