And I've also noticed people complaining more when graphics are bad. SUch as GTAIV, they don't relize that games that large can't have graphics on par with the games alot smaller on the same hardware. Yet they moan because it doesn't look good? I could see if it wasn't using the consoles power to the limit that you might complain developers aren't putting the best they could into it, but people still complain. t

graphics only make a difference if they are a hinderance of gameplay where as you notice lag and a poor attempt of graphics.

sc94597 said: --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.

That Assassins Creed example had nothing to do with physics or AI :/ Or did it? I'm not good with this stuff :P Well think about MP: Hunters then. Don't you think it lost a significant amount atmosphere and epicness on the crappy DS hardware? (compared to the other MP's)

sc94597 said: --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.

 But bad graphics would severley limit the physics i'd argue without good graphics the need for good physics wouldn't be as apparent , Physiscs give the game an increased level of realism as things respond and interact in a life like manner why wouldn't you want improved graphics as thing would apear in a life like manner ?.

 I'm no technical expert but if they physics in a game like say Goldeneye 64 were 1:1  what would the benefit of the physics be without seeing it in full detail ? Shooting at a wall , through glass etc.

@ the GTA  comment  I hardly notice anyone complain about GTA's graphics because most people appreciate the level of detail put into an open world , I think for most GTA is the exception to the rule because it compensates in so many other ways. It's a bad example to use. 

--OkeyDokey-- said: sc94597 said: --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.    That Assassins Creed example had nothing to do with physics or AI :/ Or did it? I'm not good with this stuff :P Well think about MP: Hunters then. Don't you think it lost a significant amount atmosphere and epicness on the crappy DS hardware? (compared to the other MP's)

No if the gameplay was similar to the other primes it would be a good game. Unfortunately the game was a bad game all around. It was far too linear. Had almost no aspects of a metroid game, and was basically a FPS while metroid games are more of adventure games. Also the brick interaction you described in AC is physical interactions between two objects or more. Which is physics. Graphics are visuals, while physics is how objects interact with eachother.

@Million There was a large thread with many people complaining about the graphics of GTAIV. I don't understand what you mean about the visuals being good to have good physics.

 

Actually I think in the exception of sound graphics are the least important aspect of a game.

sc94597 said: --OkeyDokey-- said: sc94597 said: --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.    That Assassins Creed example had nothing to do with physics or AI :/ Or did it? I'm not good with this stuff :P Well think about MP: Hunters then. Don't you think it lost a significant amount atmosphere and epicness on the crappy DS hardware? (compared to the other MP's) No if the gameplay was similar to the other primes it would be a good game. Unfortunately the game was a bad game all around. It was far too linear. Had almost no aspects of a metroid game, and was basically a FPS while metroid games are more of adventure games.

lol, way to dodge the question :P

There are only three games that have left a significant impression on me and changed how I viewed games forever. Two of those three are portable games. One of those two is the original Pokemon game.

All three have original and well-done art directions as well.

I actually consider graphics bad for games, because they add to cost and they don't really interest me. All that happens when I see good graphics is that I'm impressed at the effort when I see it, but it doesn't affect my judgment of the game at all. The constant rise in graphical standards only prevents more new developers from being able to jump into the market and make games that otherwise would have become top-sellers. I care about art, not graphics.

The same applies to music - I care about how catchy and good the music is, not the sound quality with which it is presented. In fact the same exact rules apply there, and the higher quality standards there are for sound, the harder time new developers have trying to sell games.

In other words, in my perfect world, not only would graphics stop progressing, they might even regress. I would much rather have more new developers and more games even from bigger corporations than a few games that have the most realistic graphics and the most boring color schemes.

Besides, if you actually think graphics are the future you should not be supporting consoles at all.

Million said: sc94597 said: --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. I'm no technical expert but if they physics in a game like say Goldeneye 64 were 1:1 what would the benefit of the physics be without seeing it in full detail ? Shooting at a wall , through glass etc.

Presumibly it would effect the gameplay in some way.  If all the physics are going to do is "Oh awesome that crate broke just how a crate should!"

It's no better then graphics.  It's when you use the physics in the gameplay that it matters.

 

Xeta said: There are only three games that have left a significant impression on me and changed how I viewed games forever. Two of those three are portable games. One of those two is the original Pokemon game. All three have original and well-done art directions as well. I actually consider graphics bad for games, because they add to cost and they don't really interest me. All that happens when I see good graphics is that I'm impressed at the effort when I see it, but it doesn't affect my judgment of the game at all. The constant rise in graphical standards only prevents more new developers from being able to jump into the market and make games that otherwise would have become top-sellers. I care about art, not graphics. The same applies to music - I care about how catchy and good the music is, not the sound quality with which it is presented. In fact the same exact rules apply there, and the higher quality standards there are for sound, the harder time new developers have trying to sell games. In other words, in my perfect world, not only would graphics stop progressing, they might even regress. I would much rather have more new developers and more games even from bigger corporations than a few games that have the most realistic graphics and the most boring color schemes. Besides, if you actually think graphics are the future you should not be supporting consoles at all.

Wow, I dunno if I've ever agreed with a post more (That wasn't involving Earthbound) Anyhow, very nicely said^^;