Cloudman said:
pokoko said:
This is always kind of a strange question for me. I mean, graphical advances often directly impact game-play advances. FPS games, for example, are highly dependent on effective 3D rendering. That makes it impossible for me to say, "it doesn't matter," because, clearly, there are instances where it does matter.
They can be a vital ingredient to improving game-play.
That being said, I don't give a rat's ass about "ultra high," and I certainly won't go looking for a new video card just because I have to play on "medium".
|
That wasn't something I considered when writing this... The visuals in a game also need to be something pleasing to the eye, or something now jarring to it. Wolfenstein 3D seems like a game that would be somewhat difficult to play as well as a bit confusing due to the graphics. Doom however is a similar to Wolfenstien, and I thought that game was impressive graphically.
I did think for awhile about games in which the graphics had a big impact on the gameplay, but I couldn't really think of any. Does the jump from 2D to 3D count..?
|
Everything counts. It's all part of progression. With some types of games, graphical advancement is simply cosmetic. With others, it enhances the game-play itself.
One of the first FPS games I played was Daggerfall. The game literally made me feel sick after playing a few hours.
Compare that to Skyrim.
But the game itself is virtually the same. Same basic mechanics, same controls, same concepts across the board. However, the improved graphics make Skyrim a much, much superior experience. It allows the developers to do so much more with what they've got.
Graphics are very important to gaming, they just aren't as important to every individual game equally.
