Griffin said: Graphics can make or break games, look at games with bad graphics to games with good graphics and the ones with bad graphics are not even playable. Gears was the first true next gen game and its sales and ratings show that. If the game had halo2 graphics you think anyone would of bought it.

 First of all: "would have", not "would of". "would of" makes no sense.

 Anyway, I've been gaming since I was 3-4 years old(NES). Of course, I didn't get big into gaming until I was about 7, but still. Graphics don't matter to me as long as they're good for the system it's on. If a Wii game looks like an N64 game, I won't buy it. 

 I'm currently a PC-Wii guy, so I get my beloved Nintendo franchises and my beloved shooters and RTS games, which are graphics-intensive.

The_vagabond7 said: I remember plenty of games that were gorgeous in their day. Super Mario Brothers 3, Resident evil, Legend Of Zelda Ocarina of time, the aforementioned Shen mue. And I have lots of great memories of those games. But very few if any of those memories are of me being in awe of how gorgeous they are. It's of how they played, the stories in them, the adventures in them, the atmosphere. People say graphics draw you into their world, create that atmosphere. Ocarina of time looks terrible by todays standard, trees made of two intercrossing sections of 2d sprites, blurry textures, low poly count characters. Resident evil? How does that even create atmosphere with low detail blurry characters made of a few handfuls of polygons, laid akwardly over blurry still images. How would a game that looks so terrible be able to draw some one in? Is it relative to the time? It seemed realistic then? Reality looked more pixelated in 1998 I guess. Having watched videogames evolved since the days where alligators were just green blobs on the screen I can say without any doubt that a game with terrible graphics can suck you in just as much as a game that has state of the art graphics. It's was and is and will always be not about how a game looks but about how they play.

I just totally agree with this. :)

naznatips said: Legend11 said: I'm always impressed when there's a game that surprises you by how good looking it is compared to other games in it's genre in the past. What I do find annoying though is that I remember during the SNES days seeing many Nintendo fans putting down the Genesis because of it's graphics and now with the Wii suddenly some are trying to convince everyone that "graphics don't really matter". Bull... And it's not just graphics that the more powerful machines have, it's the ability to have better AI and Physics as well as better graphics. I have no doubts that if the Wii was as powerful as the 360 and PS3 that some of it's fans would be posting comparison pictures, gushing over graphics, etc, just like people do on other systems. Yes, I love the AI and Physics argument.  We get that one a lot.  Show me a major AI leap made this generation.  Show me a time this generation that better physics has made a game better. See, Crysis had incredible graphics (far superior to the consoles) and Physics, but I still think it's a shitty game.  IMO great graphics are causing a lot of people to lower their standards for the rest of the game structure, and people are getting away with some really bare bones crap on high graphics.

Very well said Naz.  And I completely agree.

I've personally been a gamer for 26 years, since I was 7.  I love seeing what can be accomplished in graphics today.  I find it amazing.  But that just one piece of the whole in the experience of a game.  And, one I don't even notice too much past the first 10 minutes of a game most of the time.   Too many times I bought a game because of how awesome the graphics were, that I ended up trading in a week later because that game itself was crap.

And a lot of time I see the whole "better graphics give a better sense of immersion".  I don't personally agree with that.  I feel just as immersed in a good book, or an old text based adventure game, or in Duke Nukem 3d, as I do in Mass Effect or Bioshock.  But, maybe I have a better imagination than some.

I enjoy a good game for being a good game.  Because I liked the games, I played the Infocom Zork text game recently and King's Quest I before that.  I don't think that because newer, bigger, better looking games come along, that the older games are any less 'good'.  So, I obviously don't think that graphics make a good game.  Other than skips point of graphics affecting gameplay if you can't makeout whats going on (when the gameplay depends on it), I don't think graphics even contribute to a game being a good game.

A direct answer you your question.  I actually think I'm more impressed by graphics than younger players, because it amazes me how far technology has come, and continues to grow.  I think I appreciate graphics more than someone younger, because I come from the Atari 2600 days. 

But.......if you are wondering if as an older gamer (33yo), I value graphics in a game as much as younger players do.  The answer is absolutely not.  Graphics don't factor when determining if a game is good and enjoyable or not.  They are a nice addition to a good game.  If the game is crap, then good graphics is like the expression goes "It's like polishing a turd".

naznatips said: Smidlee said: gebx said: So true... Time and money are a finite resource. The more money and time spent on graphics and "realism", the less is spent on the mechanics, story, gameplay. As some developers have noted that graphics often sells games so ugly graphics can mean poor sales, thus less money on mechanics, etc. Of course there has to be a balance.   You should have read sqrl's post though. A game can have good graphics without focusing on them. Examples: Left 4 Dead, Super Mario Galaxy, Half-Life 2 (and episodes) etc. Good graphics and great graphics aren't the same. IMO the worst offender to the "graphics make the game" curse this year was Bioshock, which butchered their storyline and cut the game short with some relatively poor gameplay mechanics for great graphics. Call of Duty 4 is an offender too, and although I love the game (god knows I've devoted dozens of hours to it online) the single-player is criminally short, clearly due to too much focus on the technical aspects of the game.  Heavenly Sword is another example.  A 6 hour single-player only game should be butchered by reviewers and gamers alike.  That's just ridiculous.

 

Personally, I loved Bioshock, and not just for the graphics. I actually thought that area was a little weak (not the best textures, some jaggies, etc), but I fell in love with plasmids and the fighting system at first sight. The story got a bit incoherent for me after a certain death sequence, and the final boss was completely dull and badly thought out, as was the ending.  But I found the experience very engaging.  The nice art deco style, the unsettling enemies, the innovative plasmid system that makes you develop your own way to play (yes, I know System Shock did it first, but I and many others have never played that game or even heard of it before Bioshock), the upgradeable weapons, the moral dilemma of whether to save or kill the little sisters... and I'll be damned if the Big Daddy isn't the greatest 'boss' introduced to the gaming world in a long, loooong time.

Legend11 said: I'm always impressed when there's a game that surprises you by how good looking it is compared to other games in it's genre in the past. What I do find annoying though is that I remember during the SNES days seeing many Nintendo fans putting down the Genesis because of it's graphics and now with the Wii suddenly some are trying to convince everyone that "graphics don't really matter". Bull... And it's not just graphics that the more powerful machines have, it's the ability to have better AI and Physics as well as better graphics. I have no doubts that if the Wii was as powerful as the 360 and PS3 that some of it's fans would be posting comparison pictures, gushing over graphics, etc, just like people do on other systems.

 Genesis games always looked like crap.  They could have bigger sprites, which they advertised as "a real home arcade experience!" because arcade games always had huge sprites.  SNES had workarounds where an enemy would look huge, but it would mostly be the background, and the sprite would be just the weak point you target for massive damage.  And... Blast Processing was a hoax.  And SNES had Mode 7, which made Super Mario Kart possible only on the SNES, and allowed for some amazing animations in Castlevania 4, Yoshi's Island, and countless others.  And Genesis never had anything that looked half as good as Donkey Kong Country.

 I can say all this while saying graphics don't matter because... graphics don't matter.  It didn't stop me from playing the hell out of Sonic Spinball and Gunstar Heroes, and it didn't stop me from playing some really ugly games on the SNES or any other system.  Hell, I play roguelikes.

And don't get me started on Kutaragi's magic sound chip for the SNES which allowed the magical OST of FFVI to take over my playlist forever.

 

That was back when it was a jump from NES to either SNES or Genesis, and the differences in that jump were pretty big.  A quick glance at Wikipedia tells me NES had 48 colors, Genesis had 512 colors (or up to 1,536 with some trickery), and SNES had 32,768 colors.  Those are differences anybody can notice.  We're at a point where the Wii has 345,600 pixels and the PS360 have 2,073,600 pixels.  The difference in numbers is huge, but the difference to the human eye is not half as big as the jump from 1,500 colors to 32,000 colors.  Jumping from 6th gen to 7th gen is such a small pointless jump.  I'd be happy with 6th gen power and a Wii remote.  Graphics aren't really changing enough anymore for me to care.  They're good enough for me now. 

Now what I want out of games is more characters, more stages, more items, more music, ya know, things I can actually use, and that's where Brawl came in...

 

Legend11 said: I'm always impressed when there's a game that surprises you by how good looking it is compared to other games in it's genre in the past. What I do find annoying though is that I remember during the SNES days seeing many Nintendo fans putting down the Genesis because of it's graphics and now with the Wii suddenly some are trying to convince everyone that "graphics don't really matter". Bull... And it's not just graphics that the more powerful machines have, it's the ability to have better AI and Physics as well as better graphics. I have no doubts that if the Wii was as powerful as the 360 and PS3 that some of it's fans would be posting comparison pictures, gushing over graphics, etc, just like people do on other systems.

 I actually do have to agree with alot of this post here.  Last generation, Nintendo fanboys touting their Gamecube graphics to Sony fanboys.  This generation, the Nintendo fanboys just say it doesn't matter at all (what a change in personal opinion company loyalty can do).

 

I always do get tired of the "gameplay vs. graphics" argument, as if they are mutually exclusive.  It's the gaming experience, which sometimes includes both.  For example, I don't think I could get the cliff-hanging adrenaline rush in Uncharted without the realistic graphics.

DSLover said: I have never considered graphics important. Wii level graphics are fine, anything is else is just extravagant and indulgent imho.

While I would include myself in the category of those who have graphics on the lower end or teir gaming priorities, I think your argument is naive.

A standard has been set every generation of gaming, but it is only now that we have had such a large discrepancy. I belive that the standard was set by both Sony and Microsoft and that it was Nintendo who broke from the moud to create something different. Developers, including Nintendo, are fully capable of making 'Resistance'-quality graphics (good, but not outrageous) without stretching their resouces too thin. Of course, I don't mean in the instance of games that just don't justify this level of graphics (i.e. Disgaea or Wii Sports) but Mario Galaxy or Zelda:TP could very well use it. Don't get me wrong, I now own a Wii, and think Galaxy is a good looking game and it is certainly good enough to pass as a 7th gen game, but it certainly isn't the standard of what the graphics are this gen.

Heh, sorry if I had read too much into your post, and I honestly didn't mean to just respond to one person, but many here act as if liking a game more, simply for aesthetics, is an invalid opinion. It just bugs me how some, primarily those who purchased a Wii as their console of choice, bought a console that is distinctly different than the others and adopt the view that anything 'more' than what they bought is "indulgent" or "extravegant".

Im making a new thread, also Im still impressed with todays graphics, and my first caonsole was a SNES.

The Ghost of RubangB said: I can say all this while saying graphics don't matter because... graphics don't matter. It didn't stop me from playing the hell out of Sonic Spinball and Gunstar Heroes, and it didn't stop me from playing some really ugly games on the SNES or any other system. Hell, I play roguelikes.

   

I think graphics do matter. To some people. Not to all.

I love hiking. The more challenging the traverse, the better. The view when I reach the summit is the icing on the cake, aan added bonus. But the challenge is the reason I love hiking.  Others, however, hike for the view. Personally, I think that is a completely valid preference. Now they wouldn't hike if they didn't like it, but the thing they prefer the most out of the whole experience is that view.

Who are you to say graphics do not matter with such finality. It may not matter in all cases, but it certainly does in some for those who do care. 

 

FinalEvangelion said: Legend11 said: I'm always impressed when there's a game that surprises you by how good looking it is compared to other games in it's genre in the past. What I do find annoying though is that I remember during the SNES days seeing many Nintendo fans putting down the Genesis because of it's graphics and now with the Wii suddenly some are trying to convince everyone that "graphics don't really matter". Bull... And it's not just graphics that the more powerful machines have, it's the ability to have better AI and Physics as well as better graphics. I have no doubts that if the Wii was as powerful as the 360 and PS3 that some of it's fans would be posting comparison pictures, gushing over graphics, etc, just like people do on other systems. I actually do have to agree with alot of this post here. Last generation, Nintendo fanboys touting their Gamecube graphics to Sony fanboys. This generation, the Nintendo fanboys just say it doesn't matter at all (what a change in personal opinion company loyalty can do).   I always do get tired of the "gameplay vs. graphics" argument, as if they are mutually exclusive. It's the gaming experience, which sometimes includes both. For example, I don't think I could get the cliff-hanging adrenaline rush in Uncharted without the realistic graphics.

stop personifying "Nintendo fans"! We are not a single entity. It is quite possible that some people who bought the gamecube purchased it because of the graphics and some people bought the Wii because they don't care about graphics and it is quite possible that these are two completely different people!