Fumanchu, it seems as though you're putting a great value to good graphics, and I can understand that. But if noone can see the added enjoyment or quality of polished visuals, what's the point of trying to do that in the first case? If people stops buying goodlooking games, and stops caring about how they look, why should we try to mend their ways?

First year interns as head artists is only a bad thing if the consumers crave differently. Quality in and of itself is pointless, it needs an audience that appreciates it. Reviewers must reflect their audiences tastes, or they will find themselves superfluous.

In short, I think you're attacking this whole debate from the wrong angle. Gamers>Reviewers>Developers, not the other way around.

It helps me shoot you before you shoot me.

I like "Adventure",
That should sufficiently convey my opinion on the matter

yes graphics should in my opinion. But only relative to the other games on that system. like not rating a Wii game down because similar games on the 360 look better, og course unless the games looks that much worse then it takes away from the emertion of the in comp to the hd consoles.


If a game has super cool graphics it should get a higher score for that. They should just rate various catergeries out of 10, then average it, thts the score the game shoul get graphics and game-play being in it aswell

Graphics should count in reviews i feel.
But for me, the question is whether the style of the graphics suit the actual game, and whether the graphcs detract from the game in a bad way.

For instance, Tetris and minesweeper are games played by millions, but don't need fancy 3000 fps bazillion bit color depth running with multi billion polygon models.

Would a photo-realistic JRPG even make sense? but a war based FPS would be fantastic if it was photo-realistic, or a sci-fi based one that looks like it was made on real sets with sfx.

The best graphics (or special effects in movies) for me are those that aren't necessarily noticed, but fit perfectly and don't ruin the immersion.
Glitchy graphics I'm not keen on, like clipping issues or in movies where you can still see the ropes and harnesses attached to the stuntmen.

I think they should they should be judged primarily on their suitability to the game with extra points added for outstandingly well made ones and points taken away for glitchy ones.

Yes. If graphics didn't matter to a game, then we wouldn't need TVs to play them. If Killzone 2 looked as bad Superman 64 then it would be a much worse game. Hell, if any game released nowadays looked that bad it would be really horrible.

@Bod:

I think the issue stems from the different perspectives here. You are looking for an extremely functional representation, infact better visuals can be a negative for you because you derive your enjoyment from your competitive games in besting your opponent, and improving the visual accuity can clutter the screen up.

On the other end of the scale are the people who want to be immersed in the environment. Become the Spartan in Halo rather than play as him. For these people better graphics can provide better immersion which provides a better experience.

Most people fit into the middle somewhere, so both graphics and gameplay are important. Personally I rate them both equally and I like my games to have good measures of both.

The difference between movies and games is that one can take a camera, stick it on a tri-pod and achieve functionally good visuals which could appease almost everyone in their potential audience. A game developer cannot do that outside of certain genres such as 2d platformers, so there is an emphasis there on improving quality. There is always room for improvement, whereas with cameras the visuals have remained static for years.

Lastly, if FPS games are considered to have remained relatively static over the years and the only major improvements in the last 10 years have been visual. Then if the games market has grown since then with only those visual improvements you have to concede they may be of importance to enough people to make an impact on the market. (Not as much recently as the Wiimote was but still important)

no. look at Diablo II its have a high score and a very bad graphics so i dont think its will affect the score that much.

I agree with you, at the end of the day how the game plays is what matters + how it looks.

You gotta have both IMO

How many classic have real graphical problems? very few. graphics are a part of the feedback and if you dont get any feedback you dont enjoy a game.


Try imagining smash bros with just the polygon characters. now take away the sharps triangles and replace it with the 2d shape of the hit box (which is not the character, its a lot closer to a box around the character). now take away the shinyness of the polygon characters. now take away their special hit boxes for the attacks and replace them with more boxes. also take away the background, the stage decoration, the dust, the hit explosions, the projectile effects, and the animations.

what u are left with is a very functional and fun game that would suck to play. graphics matter. they may only serve as a transportation for feedback to you, but if they cant accomplish that then they mar the experience.