By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Lets discuss GRAPHICS

Norris2k on 16 June 2014
Intrinsic said:
Chark said:
I disagree. The trade off of graphics for gameplay is far more of a "buzzword" scenario in modern gaming perception. Is it that hard to realize that graphics and performance are often keys to new and better gameplay methods? The clamor over graphics today is in the spirit of setting a standard of quality, Sure some games might be just as fine off with 720p over 1080p or 30fps over 60fps, but not all, and in the end the higher numbers are going to better. Necessary? No. Better? Yes. Detriment to another unrelated vital aspect of a game? No.

I am not saying graphics are not important. But no, graphics are not key to new gameplay methods. 95% of every game made today stems from genres that have ben in existance for the most part of the last 20yrs. Yes, we get better detail and more effects, but te things that really make these games shine tody aren't things that are defined by graphics. A games mechanics, ai, animation, physics, level design...etc are all the details that makes a game better today. It doesn't hurt that the game looks good though.

i will say again, as far as performance, certain things are important as they actually affect how the game is percieved and played. A games framerate being consistent at at least 30fps is more important than if that game is running at 60fps or 120fps and should be reported as such. We should say, rock solid framerate before we say 60fps. Just look at games with an unlocked framerate that drops from 60fps to as low as 45fps..... any gamer given the option to lock that framerate down to 30fps will jump at it.

As far as I know, graphics have always been extremely important. Back to the days of the NES/SNES, it was all about sprite size, animation quality, number of colors, scrolling, parallax scrolling, mode 7, sound chipset. Even if you think now that Super Mario was "just about fun", it was not the case. The smoothness, sprites, colors, effects were top notch. Sega had to counterstrike with the "blast processing" and sonic ! And the Neo Geo was the top console for its sprite size and color.



Around the Network
MoHasanie on 16 June 2014

I wouldn't notice and I wish we didn't know about the resolutions and framerates of games.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

Raziel123 on 16 June 2014
Intrinsic said:

 

So my question is this, would we all be overall better off if we didnt know? 

No. Despite some stupid comments and arguments, i'm glad we get to know these things. It's one thing that always annoyed me on console games, how little was said about these things, specially before a game was released. It's part of being an informed costumer



AZWification on 16 June 2014
DirtyP2002 said:
The artstyle remains the most important factor of a games visuals. Period.

Pretty much this. Older games like Okami and Epic Yarn are still more appealing to me than something like Battlefield thanks to the unique art styles!



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

curl-6 on 16 June 2014
AZWification said:
DirtyP2002 said:
The artstyle remains the most important factor of a games visuals. Period.

Pretty much this. Older games like Okami and Epic Yarn are still more appealing to me than something like Battlefield thanks to the unique art styles!

Me three. I'll take Kirby's Epic Yarn or Muramasa the Demon Blade in 480p over Killzone Shadowfall in 1080p any day of the week.



Around the Network
AZWification on 16 June 2014
curl-6 said:

Me three. I'll take Kirby's Epic Yarn or Muramasa the Demon Blade in 480p over Killzone Shadowfall in 1080p any day of the week.

Muramasa! That was anoher game with an amazing art-style! Definitely one of the best looking Wii games ever!



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

sethnintendo on 16 June 2014

As long as the game looks decent and has good gameplay/controls then I don't care what the specs are. If the frame rate drops below noticeable levels then that is bad, but if it goes from 60 to 58 and not noticeable then I don't give a shit.



FoxMan250 on 16 June 2014

There's graphics and then there's performance to me. People confuse the two or merge them together now a days. Graphics are art, style, etc. Performance is based on pixel count, polygon count, frame rate, etc.

Both are important, and both require team work to achieve a desirable game.



gergroy on 16 June 2014
RolStoppable said:
If we didn't know, then the discussions would just shift to other petty topics. Consider that graphics discussions for the most the part are framed as system vs. system, rather than game vs. game. Be grateful that graphics offer various numbers to compare, that way not everything is entirely opinionated.


it's still pretty much entirely opinionated...



Mikeanheath on 16 June 2014

I agree it would be better if we didn't know. Too many gamers see those digital foundry videos with the framerate ticker across the bottom and see it jump all over the place and take note, "It dropped from 30 to 22 for a split second, and shout framerate issues, unplayable." When if they hadn't seen that video they never would have noticed at all. I remember people telling me The Last of Us had framerate issues. I've played through it many times, and haven't noticed anything that is worthy of mentioning "framerate issues"

Same with resolution. Digital Foundry said Resistance 2 ran at 1280x704 and Resistance 3 @ 960x704 which is 25% less pixel count than 2. I think we all can agree how much better R3 looked over R2.  I was really surprised the resolution was lower than 2, but had I not read that I wouldn't have even known. I think we all have had these 1080p TVs for a while and the majority of games we played last gen were 1280x720 or less and we just want to know the devs are going to give us an upgrade so we can play full native 1080p on our TVs.

You're right though most gamers wouldn't even notice if they weren't told.