hikaruchan said: Games like Cryisis and alike have no artistic merit what so ever. there gameplay is non existent and graphics are all about trying to recreate a very bland and boring realistic look.

Crysis is one of the best looking games I've ever played, both technically and artistically. It's beautiful, and it isn't beautiful solely due to some high res testures and a lot of polygons.

It's all dependent on the game. If a game is available on the HD Twins AND the PC, then clearly I go for the PC version. Why hinder myself right?

Too many variables with that question to be honest.

Kantor said: It's undoubtedly true that gameplay contributes to immersion more than anything else. A close second, however, is atmosphere. A lot of atmosphere is visual design and soundtrack, but some small amount is contributed by technical graphics. Compare, for example, the atmosphere of Far Cry to that of Crysis. In my opinion at least, Crysis was far more immersive, even though they had pretty much identical visual aesthetics. Far Cry looked great for its time, but Crysis is beautiful. Having said that, the technical side of things was only worth anything because of the stellar visual design. Lackluster design + great technology = mediocre result Great design + great technology = great result.

For me it's something like this:

Great design + Great technology = Great result
Great design + fair technology = Great result
Great design + lackluster technology = fair game

As you can see, the different outcome from having fair graphics and great graphics is pretty tiny imo. Though, I will notice if it's lackluster. Once games start looking decent, then technicals reallly stop having an affect. At that point, it's up to the devs creativity & application of the technology.

Also, the word "undoubtedly". I hate that word and you've said it twice already. Say it again and I will assassinate you.*

*please don't ban me for threatening you.**

**This doesn't mean I still won't assassinate you if you provoke me.

Panama said: It's all dependent on the game. If a game is available on the HD Twins AND the PC, then clearly I go for the PC version. Why hinder myself right? Too many variables with that question to be honest.

I rephrased the title. Better?

Naturally, all other things being equal, technically better graphics are preferable to technically worse graphics -- at least where polygons are concerned. The 16-bit era has aged very well. Aesthetics are far more important to me than technical graphics, but when the two work together -- now there's a nice-looking game.

It's like this for me. Here's a scale that I think will explain my situation better. I will list certain graphical levels & I will list the amount of enjoyment those graphics help.

This is if a game was released today. And it'll be referring to 3D games with realistic figures.

Bad 6th gen game: 0 pts
Decent 6th gen game: 5 pts
Amazing 6th gen game: 15 pts
Bad HD game: 20 pts
Decent HD game: 25 pts
Great HD game: 26 pts
Amazing HD game: 27 pts

Of course, art syle can alter the pts also.

I've always been a graphics whore in the sense I want the game to look exactly like the developer wants. A game like LBP looks just as good as Uncharted because both are aiming for a specific art style. My problem with graphics is when it's obvious the developer wanted a game to look one way yet the final result is worse. One of my favorite games last generation was Downhill Domination. By today's standards its graphics are still ok because it was aiming for a style.

depends on the game, and art style.

Panama said: It's all dependent on the game. If a game is available on the HD Twins AND the PC, then clearly I go for the PC version. Why hinder myself right? Too many variables with that question to be honest.

I wish it was that easy but it's not. I got Deus Ex HR for the pc to play in 1080p. Unfortunately the game tends to stutter while you're turning and since the mouse update is somehow hampered by the frame rate I would overshoot all the time. Solution disable v-sync, ugly.
The witcher 2 looked extremely good too, but in various scenes I had to go back into the graphic options to adjust things to keep it playable.

At least on console you're guaranteed some base level of performance. I rather have a more consistent experience then one with more bells and whistles. Unfortunately a lot of games try to put too much on screen nowadays and the experience becomes far from consistent. Less is more imo.

Smeags said: You specified "technical graphics", which is an interesting point. It's something of a gaming pet peeve of mine when people use the term "graphics" to lump everything visually in a game. There's so many different aspects to the visuals you see when you play that shiny new video game... and while the technical aspects of the system are the tools used by game developers, in the end it's their own designs, creativity, and imagination that make the game pleasing to the eye or not. Here's a video by the guys at Extra Credits who share my stance on the issue of graphics. They explain it much better than I can. ^_^

Thanks for this post Smeags. I always understood this concept, but never new really how to put it into words.

Can you take a quick look at this OP and comment if you can?

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=143078&page=1