Who say's Graphics aren't important?

[deSade]

Reading through a lot of the posts on this forum, I can see that there are a lot of guys buying 360 games purely based on the looks - people hoping to get hooked on a new genre if the GFX are good enough.

I just wonder if any of you would sell your soul to the Devil (play something that you normally would hate), just because of the looks?

 

[Chads]

Sure you would. We play games for fun, and it's fun to see graphics better than you've experienced before.

 

[Mike UK]

I like to see new technology being used although graphics are important currently playing san andreas on a ps2 after playing it on a pc the graphics are so bad its almost unplayable.

 

[lemonkettaz]

there seems to be too much emphasis on graphics recently though.. although its amazing to see the hardware being used... sometimes a game with a bit more would be nice..

 

[blueshift]

Well of course graphics are important, thats why we all bough a more powerfull machine?? but gameplay is important as well, i think good graphics make the game feel more immersive, i find it really strange that people want to play retro games on a powerfull machine, , still each to his own??

 

[NokkonWud]

I don't know what you mean?
I don't know anyone who's bought a game on the Xbox360 for the graphics? I know lots of people who bought pretty graphics on the Xbox360, but they were all for the gameplay...

 

[Haly]

I'm not bothered about them. I'm impressed by good graphics but I don't think I'd ever buy a game because it looked pretty nor do I think it'd be a large factor in why I purchased it.
Then again that'd probably explain why I'm happy playing older games.
Gameplay > * for me.

 

[lemonkettaz]

Well of course graphics are important, thats why we all bough a more powerfull machine?? but gameplay is important as well, i think good graphics make the game feel more immersive, i find it really strange that people want to play retro games on a powerfull machine, , still each to his own??

lol... yeh.. diehard people that rave on about retro classics were the best for gameplay.... yet they buy crossfire x1900

better graphics are needed in new games.... but obviously they cant exchange and lose gameplay

we demand both.. as a gamer

 

[blueshift]

I don't know what you mean?
I don't know anyone who's bought a game on the Xbox360 for the graphics? I know lots of people who bought pretty graphics on the Xbox360, but they were all for the gameplay...

Tongue firmly in cheek eh??

 

[dirtydog]

I don't know what you mean?
I don't know anyone who's bought a game on the Xbox360 for the graphics? I know lots of people who bought pretty graphics on the Xbox360, but they were all for the gameplay...

What about people who already own/played the Xbox/PS2 version of Burnout Revenge, but still bought the 360 version?

 

[Kainz]

there seems to be too much emphasis on graphics recently though.. although its amazing to see the hardware being used... sometimes a game with a bit more would be nice..

It's been like that for years though. Everyone wants immersive enviroments and visuals are the driving force of it all. Gameplay tbh has been poor on a lot of games for sometime now. I love seeing graphics engine's at work, well I used to until it became so commonplace on the pc platform as fps games became the dominent genre that I got sick of it.

Doesn't help that game developers for ages have been too scared to take a risk and develop complex engines that offer good interactive enviroments.

Given that we've got so much power in a console, it's normal for the clueless kids out there to expect top quality visuals. So far the only true 'next gen visual game' on the 360 is Fight Night.

 

[punky_munky]

It depends what people mean by good graphics.

A steady framerate is very important as it can impact on the all important gameplay. Is that good graphics?

Does good graphics mean using all the available effects all the time? I don't think the 360 games that appear plastic wrapped look good.

In my opinion good graphics are more about style than technical achievment.

I think people who enjoy old games would agree with that.

 

[dirtydog]

I'm not bothered about them. I'm impressed by good graphics but I don't think I'd ever buy a game because it looked pretty nor do I think it'd be a large factor in why I purchased it.
Then again that'd probably explain why I'm happy playing older games.
Gameplay > * for me.

This is why I'm happy with my (first gen) Xbox and see no urgent need to buy a 360 yet. In my eyes the Xbox's graphics are still great anyway, and they're still bringing games out for it so why the rush to upgrade... especially when most of the 360's games are on the current gen consoles anyway. Meh.

 

[JUMPURS]

I just wonder if any of you would sell your soul to the Devil (play something that you normally would hate), just because of the looks?

All i can say is there is not really any games i would normally hate. I will try/play any type of game tbh. But i guess the only games i tend not to play are football games, cos even though i like football, i've never really got a great deal of enjoyment out of football games, so prettyness wouldnt sell it. Sure if all my mates had it or that, but even if it looked like it was streaming direct from Sky Sports in HD, wouldnt persuade me to buy it tbh

 

[Baine]

Graphics arnt everything but i like to see the best tech being used i really cant play my PS2 anymore it just looks cack against my PC and 360

 

[~J~]

What about people who already own/played the Xbox/PS2 version of Burnout Revenge, but still bought the 360 version?

I still don't think this is a valid argument. I know it's a cliché of late, and I know a few people are gonna roll eyes, but we're back to the achivements thing.

It's all very well turning round and saying you've got perfect on every level, but if you can't prove it (in a nice way, not bigheaded) then a little bit of the fun goes out.

Live has been available since the original Xbox, but again we're now introduced with a totally different multiplayer experience, online gaming for the 360 is far more advanced that the original.

I know what you're saying, and I did say this to try and avoid spending another £40 on a game, but comparing the two, despite the pretty graphics, the 360 version is still miles ahead better.

 

[Weebull]

I read an editorial a few days ago on Joystiq about how the writer thought HUDs were unneccesary, and should be scrapped as much as possible, to increase the "immersion" and realism of the game. He suggested that the health bar was an unneccesary addition to graphics these days, and that we should get rid of it, and I couldn't help but laugh. That's near enough a textbook example of what I hate about the way a lot of people want to go with games these days. Realism above everything else, as though it somehow makes a game a million times better if we make it look more like things we know. Well I'm afraid it just plain doesn't.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great way to push the capabilities of PCs in particular, by creating better and better looking environments, but the fact remains, graphics are becoming more and more superfluous now. For me at least, I find that as long as the graphics aren't outright bad, I don't really care how it looks, and I'm happy to play the game itself for what it actually is. That's why I can still play old SNES games, or Deus Ex, or Starcraft, and it doesn't bother me whether they look "next-gen" or not. Because they're all good games regardless. Why do twice as many people play the original CS compared to the better looking Source version? Because we much prefer the gameplay of the original. Graphics might suck you in to a game, but it's the gameplay that keeps you there.

I don't know what you mean?
I don't know anyone who's bought a game on the Xbox360 for the graphics? I know lots of people who bought pretty graphics on the Xbox360, but they were all for the gameplay...

You could argue that anyone that's bought a 360 has done so almost purely for the graphics imo, especially if they had already owned an Xbox. Kameo and Condemned are about the only two games that are actually fairly unique to the 360. All the others are either also Xbox or PC games, or really aren't that much different from games you can get on those platforms (Is PGR3 really all that better than PGR2?).

 

[NokkonWud]

What about people who already own/played the Xbox/PS2 version of Burnout Revenge, but still bought the 360 version?

They have improved several elements to it (apparently). There's also an improved multiplayer (again, apparently).

I didn't get it on the Xbox as I knew it was coming out on the Xbox360.

 

[mcc49]

I think graphics does matter but it should be relative to the console, I mean a lot of GBA game dont have amazing 3D graphics but a lot of people including me still buy and enjoy them. However if you play the same game on a more powerful machine like XB360, I would be more reluctent to play it as you would expect something better looking for your brand spanking new next gen machine.

 

[Sagalout]

You could argue that anyone that's bought a 360 has done so almost purely for the graphics imo, especially if they had already owned an Xbox. Kameo and Condemned are about the only two games that are actually fairly unique to the 360. All the others are either also Xbox or PC games, or really aren't that much different from games you can get on those platforms (Is PGR3 really all that better than PGR2?).

I'll kind agree with you I supppose. I'll readily admit I got a 360 because the graphics are a lot better. xbox1 and ps2 look pretty awful on a big screen, but with the better graphics comes better immersion. Take your pgr3 example - from a physics poit of view there not much difference, but add the in-car view and lighting and its 100% more immersive as a game than pgr2. COD2 is a much better game than the big red one, due to the extra power available to the developers etc etc.

For me its a simple case of good graphics can not turn a bad game into a good one, they can turn a good game into a great one.