MikeB said: Graphics are IMO very important, good graphics (high quality art and good effects) and audio (high quality music and good sound effects) help to add greatly to the experience. Our eyes and ears are the most important sensory organs with which we experience games or movies. Imagine an epic movie like Lord of the Rings in bad recording quality and black & white colors, bad special effects, bad audio quality, etc. this would dampen quite a bit of my enthusiasm for this movie. Sure excellent gameplay/design + excellent story telling + mediocre graphics + mediocre sound > mediocre gameplay + mediodre story telling + excellent graphics + excellent sound But excellent gameplay/design + excellent story telling + excellent graphics + excellent sound = IMO the far more excellent game! Luckily the best games usually also get the proper treatment to push graphics and audio up there to match the gameplay/design and story. I don't agree with some who seem to claim 3D graphics are superior to 2D graphics by default. A 3D or semi-3D approach usually allows for far more artistic freedom, but it still takes talent to really hit the nails.

I think this is the best answer so far. It answers my question, without attacking my opinion, and it has some pretty good points. This only works for games that are trying to utilize high visuals imo though. Alot of games don't need this to reach their target visually.

 

sc94597 said: Damstr8 said: sc94597 said: Damstr8 said: graphics are one of most important aspects of a game for exampled condemned wouldnt be the game it is without the excellent lighting and graphics that create the realistic atmosphere.it wouldnt be anywhere near as horrifying if it were on...say the ps2,why? simply because it wouldnt look anywhere as real as it does now. as technology advances,video games get better. whether its the graphics or motion sensing,the main point is to immerse you into the game. and to say graphics dont matter in games is just a stupid and ignorant statement Actually alot of horror games benefit from bad graphics. Anyway I wasn't talking about if graphics matter or not I was talking about why having the best matters. Past the area where you get wowed by it I don't see a point. are you kidding?go back and play doom II...then play condemned 2.....trust me condemned is much more terrifying,and as far as having the best matters,it matters a lot more then you think...games are constantly trying to get to new levels of "wow" the original gears of war was "wow"....now most games these days are on a similar graphical level...and im sure GT5 and FF13 when they come out will "wow". But how long will it take until you don't care anymore about the games visuals? For me about 5 minutes. And if you play a game like crysis, and know none of these games will beat it technically how could you say wow? A game could be beautiful without being the most technically advanced.

crysis will be eventually be beaten maybe not by a console game....but yes....in time there will be a better looking game. and as far as being dazzled by graphics that really varies on the person...for me some games i am constantly wow as i play through it alli usually take the time and look around and appreciate how much work the developers actually put into the game...for some people....like you....are wowed for 5 minutes and go on about there day.and yes a game can be beautiful in its own way with being techincally advanced,but that still contributes the graphical aspect the game,from what some people have said,even the game could be the most beautiful thing theyve ever seen,it doesnt matter because gameplay is all there is...which IMO is dead wrong.its a combination of both,the gameplay can be the most spectacular fun your ever had...but without the the graphics to help draw you into the game itself....your still missing some of the experience.

 

For me, the most important thing about graphics is that they shouldn't detract from the gameplay. The graphics need to be without issues and should not be ugly. As long as the graphics don't get in the way of the game, the graphics are good enough for me.

480P widescreen without artifacts and slowdown, or ugly textures, blocky models, etc. is good enough for me.

Why do graphics matter... because people demand info right away. Games are announced before development has even been started in meaningful ways some time.

As such, the first things your going to see is a stupid rendered trailer that shows you no or very little gameplay because the gameplay hasn't even been made yet.

Well that and graphics just like everything else are expected to be at least slightly better then the console before it, because everything is expected to be at least slightly better.

Bodhesatva said: I think it's clear where the dividing line is, other than fanboys who simply parrot what their console of choice dictates. Some people care about immersion and story telling. For those goals, graphics are quite important (examples: Final Fantasy, Gears of War). Some people care about gameplay so much more than anything else, that graphics are nearly irrelevant (examples: Tetris, Starcraft). It just depends on your personal preferences.

I... couldn't disagree more. I care very much about storytelling.

I think the focus first on graphics has killed storytelling in a lot of ways... of which the biggest example of is the Final Fantasy series.

Playing strong to one area weakens all other areas.  In terms of storybased games it makes more sense to focus most on the story, not the graphics.  Keep Ps2 level graphics and hire some real writiers and voiceactors.

psrock said: my problem with your argument is simple 1. the ps3 and 360 have better graphics 2. you prefer the wii 3. graphics suddenly is not important. however, i remember you jumping for joy to show us how good the Conduit looks. Just put it this way, imagine you favorites games looking like crysis..... just imagine it.

Honestly, it depends on the game. If the game is a huge blockbuster from a big company sure. I'd rather have it have crysis level graphics.

For anything else i'd rather it has PS2 level graphics, that way the company is going to make more money and therefore decide it's worth it to make a sequel, or that company gets to stay in buisness.

Furthermore, picture Crysis but not looking as good, with a little big of the money used in developing it focusing on the gameplay and used to hire some real writers to write the story.

It'd probably be a better game. 

--OkeyDokey-- said: Just play COD4 on the 360/ps3/PC and then play it on the DS. If you still think graphics do nothing to improve a game, then you're in denial.

 Truer words were never spoken.

People seem to forget that graphics don't just mean looking good.

Think about Assassins Creed. That game isn't possible on Wii, not because of HD textures and whatnot, but because of the sheer interactivity of the environment.

You can climb EVERY tiny little brick that sticks out of a vertical surface.
In Crysis, you can shoot any random tree in the jungle, and it will eventually break in two.

Things like this can improve a game greatly.

Kasz216 said: psrock said: my problem with your argument is simple 1. the ps3 and 360 have better graphics 2. you prefer the wii 3. graphics suddenly is not important. however, i remember you jumping for joy to show us how good the Conduit looks. Just put it this way, imagine you favorites games looking like crysis..... just imagine it. Honestly, it depends on the game. If the game is a huge blockbuster from a big company sure. I'd rather have it have crysis level graphics. For anything else i'd rather it has PS2 level graphics, that way the company is going to make more money and therefore decide it's worth it to make a sequel, or that company gets to stay in buisness. Furthermore, picture Crysis but not looking as good, with a little big of the money used in developing it focusing on the gameplay and used to hire some real writers to write the story. It'd probably be a better game.

i would have accepted this in 2005, is it too much to ask for game to look good, i'm sorry but ps2 graphic does not cut it for me anymore.

 

--OkeyDokey-- said: People seem to forget that graphics don't just mean looking good. Think about Assassins Creed. That game isn't possible on Wii, not because of HD textures and whatnot, but because of the sheer interactivity of the environment. You can climb EVERY tiny little brick that sticks out of a vertical surface. In Crysis, you can shoot any random tree in the jungle, and it will eventually break in two. Things like this can improve a game greatly.

 Sorry, but you are confusing graphics with physics. Now physics and AI are far more important than graphics.