Graphics

[fredthehylian]

One time when my friend was telling me about a new Xmen game or whatever, he told me the graphics were the best of all time. The next day I thought to myself: Do graphics really matter that much? I mean come on. Graphics don't enhance gameplay that much. Although if graphics were so bad that they used a dot to represent a building, then the graphics need some serious changing. But if the game is too realistic, bright, or whatever, then that would cause some optic problems if those games are played too much. So what is your opinion on this matter?

 

[Niko Bellic 817]

I never care about the graphics in video games. It's the gameplay that is most important and the music. I also like playing NES games a lot even though their graphics are primitive. Twilight Princess for example is critisized for it's graphics though I personally thought the graphics were great. Nowadays, it seems people are much more concerned over a game's graphical appeal than how fun the game is. Halo 3, for example is praised for it's great graphics, though in terms of single-player gameplay I've heard that there wasn't much to it (I don't own the game.)

 

[Evenstevenp]

I must be the only person in my school who isn't like "OH MY GODDDD GEARS OF WAR 2 DA GRAPHICZ ARE SOOO GOOD ZOMG"

People who play NES, SNES or N64 games at my school (mainly me and my friend Josh) are ridiculed because those games have crappy graphics and are too kiddy.

I hate my school so much.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

Heh, this made me chuckle a bit actually. I guess Xmen: Origins is now the best game ever because it has the best graphics and tons of blood am I right? Wrong. I've played it. It's so extremely repetitive, that it's laughable. Beat up bad guys. Go the next area. Beat up bad guys. Go to the next area. Fight a super bad guy. Got to the next area. Repeat until game is finished. There's absolutely no variety to that game at all. But, people will always buy games like that, just because they look pretty. Heck, that's why people think the 360 and PS3 are superior to the Wii: Just because the graphic capability is superior. But that doesn't mean crap if all of the games are just rehashes of past titles, which is exactly what 85% of the games on those systems are. That is why I prefer Nintendo and its games. There's always something new, be it the gravity function in Mario Galaxy, the sword controls in LoZ: TP, or the brand new FPS system featured in Metroid Prime 3 and soon to be in Other: M. Even some of the Sonic the Hedgehog titles seem better to me on the Wii. As long as Nintendo continues to bring fresh ideas and games I find to be enjoyable, I'll always be a "Nintendo fanboy", because Nintendo is currently the only gaming company worthy of being a fanboy of.

I think this is a nice way to put: If a game sucks, it's going to suck, no matter how fancy you try to dress it up.

 

[Deku Scrub]

I always go by the policy of Gameplay > Graphics. It's incredibly annoying how typical people that like video games always focus on "OMGZ...THE GRAPHIKZ IZ SO AMAZINZ..." when the game is the biggest load of crap ever with terrible controls, repetitive gameplay, and zero replay value whatsoever.

That's why I never buy games based on graphics, which is basically all Nintendo games...all Nintendo systems. Not that the graphics aren't good, they are actually very good for their time, but Nintendo games are the ones that you can always trust that they'll be good. And plus, I ain't payin' 500 freakin' dollars for a stupid PS3 so it'll look good. What fun is that?

You can always trust Nintendo, though. I always have, and I pretty much always will.

GAMEPLAY > GRAPHICS!

 

[Petman1325]

I wouldn't buy a game based on graphics. I would concider graphics on a review of a game (coughsuperman64cough), because I want to see what is happening. I mean, you also have to concider what the console can do, such as gameplay and the length of an adventure. I wouldn't want to play a game with life-like graphics that is only 2 hours long.

I don't mind playing a game with good visuals. I think that graphics add on to the game, but, I also believe in art styles. Sometimes, a game deliberately has a lower quality for a reason (Wind Waker, but I thought it looked really nice). I live in a community in which they believe that graphics are everything (They also are ignorant upon plot, etc)(I do have friends who also believe in plot, controls, and Nintendo's epicness), so that makes me a bit mad.

 

[Smitie]

The problem with graphics is that the standard changes every day. When I played OoT for the first time a lot of years ago I was absolutly stunned about the awesome graphics. When I played Harry Potter and the philosphofers (I know it is spelled wrong) stone on the PC, I was again stunned. The facial features where to most realistic thing I've ever seen eventhough they didn't move their mouths and they even had a hand with a thumb and finger that could move seperatly from the rest of the fingers which were glued together.
If you look at OoT or Harry Potter 1 today, you will all agree the graphics look extremely goofy. So judging a game on it's graphics is a bit useless.

That is why I don't care about graphics much. I rather have a game with a good story and good gameplay than a graphics explosion. I also think that a lot of gamers think that good graphics mean realistic graphics, but I can easily say that Okami is graphicly way better than Gears of whatever 2.

 

[basement24]

I'd say good graphics are a bonus to good gameplay. You can still have a great game with lousy graphics, and conversely, good graphics can't hide the fact that a game's gameplay is terrible.

If I'm evaluating graphics alone, I think it depends too on the system. I don't need 360 realistic textures and the like in a Wii game. If a game on the Wii has good graphics, then it's good for that system. IE - I can still go back and play 8-bit NES titles and love their graphics. They, in no way, compare to the life-like work done on the next gen systems, but they are still good graphics for the system they were on. So, it's all relative.

I definitely get attracted to a game because of graphics, because in internet videos, that's all you really have to go on is appearances. I was really excited for Batman Arkham Asylum based on graphics alone, but really, it needs to have good gameplay in order to be a good game. Luckily, I had a chance to play it for a good amount of time, and it's a tight controlled, fun game.

I suppose it's a bit like entering a relationship. The first impressions are often based on appearances and initial physical attraction. Then, you get to know the game more and find out either it's as good as the appearance is to you, or it's horribly bad, and you should run for your life.

 

[colonialman456]

You know i don't really beleive that graphics matter. I mean Ocarina of time was great but i still love A Link to the past more. Gameplay rolls around here.

 

[Zenox]

Graphics aren't a big problem all that much. If they can be enhanced, go for it, as long as the game is good, I'll play it. I love the original LoZ, because I don't care about graphics. My friends say most NES games suck because of how the graphics look. If a game has terrible graphics, they won't play it. I keep trying to prove to them that the Adventure of Link is by far the hardest Zelda game, but the graphics "Suck too bad", so they refuse to play it. I don't get this point at all. Sure, graphics could make a game slightly better, but the gameplay isn't different at all.

If they were to make any handheld game such as MC in LoZ graphics, I would have still bought it. I would have still loved it.

If graphics can be enhanced, however, I'm totally fine with that, it's not a big problem for me. I don't understand why Nintendo fights to make the "best game possible", but they mostly just focus on making a game that is pleasant to look at. It doesn't make the game any better in my opinion.

 

[Yumil]

I always find these debates interesting despite the fact that there are only a few points of view that get repeated constantly. As such, I must fill my role and include another point of view in your post.

Graphics do matter because they are not separate from gameplay. Graphics are a part of the gameplay and having better graphics can enhance the gameplay. "Better graphics" are not all about more polygons and smoother models. It also includes lighting and other real world effects and these effects are not just novelties.

Since this is a Legend of Zelda site, let's look at a Zelda game as an example. I don't think anyone here is denying that Twilight Princess has the best graphics in the series - regardless of how you feel about the game in general. I'm going to use a specific fight as my example: Blizzetta.

During the fight, Blizzetta hovers above you and drops large chucks of ice on top of you before trying to crush you herself. The camera in the game purposefully tilts so that you cannot see what is happening above you. Instead, you can only look at the floor, and when you do you see Blizzetta's reflection in the ice as she is hovering above you. This allows you to watch where she will attack and gives this fight a unique touch that no other fight in the series mimics.

Blizzetta is definitely not the best boss in the game for this mechanic, but it proves what the enhanced graphics of Twilight Princess allowed the game developers to do that could not be done in the 2D era (though shadows are used in some fights) or in Ocarina of Time. There's plenty of ice in Ocarina of Time, but you aren't seeing your reflection in it.

Graphics alone cannot make a game, but gameplay without graphics is broken gameplay. Improving the graphics can enhance the gameplay by allowing game creators to do things that were impossible previously.

 

[Yoshi_FTW]

I always find these debates interesting despite the fact that there are only a few points of view that get repeated constantly. As such, I must fill my role and include another point of view in your post.

Graphics do matter because they are not separate from gameplay. Graphics are a part of the gameplay and having better graphics can enhance the gameplay. "Better graphics" are not all about more polygons and smoother models. It also includes lighting and other real world effects and these effects are not just novelties.

Since this is a Legend of Zelda site, let's look at a Zelda game as an example. I don't think anyone here is denying that Twilight Princess has the best graphics in the series - regardless of how you feel about the game in general. I'm going to use a specific fight as my example: Blizzetta.

During the fight, Blizzetta hovers above you and drops large chucks of ice on top of you before trying to crush you herself. The camera in the game purposefully tilts so that you cannot see what is happening above you. Instead, you can only look at the floor, and when you do you see Blizzetta's reflection in the ice as she is hovering above you. This allows you to watch where she will attack and gives this fight a unique touch that no other fight in the series mimics.

Blizzetta is definitely not the best boss in the game for this mechanic, but it proves what the enhanced graphics of Twilight Princess allowed the game developers to do that could not be done in the 2D era (though shadows are used in some fights) or in Ocarina of Time. There's plenty of ice in Ocarina of Time, but you aren't seeing your reflection in it.

Graphics alone cannot make a game, but gameplay without graphics is broken gameplay. Improving the graphics can enhance the gameplay by allowing game creators to do things that were impossible previously.

I think the last paragraph in that massive speech (just kidding) is totally true. True, gameplay is around 50-60% of how I judge a game, but Graphics is probably the other 40-50%. And the other 20% is just plot, story, etc. Horrible graphics can make a game bad no matter how good the gameplay is. That's my opinion.

 

[General Lee]

Ah great thread. Me being a classic gamer, I have this argument with people CONSTANTLY. For me you can never judge a game on graphics. Well there is some instances. Example with modern day gaming I guess would be ok to say anything about graphics, like for games like Call of Duty. They are the same game for PS3 as 360 but if one has better graphics you can argue that.

So anyways, I judge a game on first of all game play. I don't care if the graphics look dang near real life, if the game is junk it means nothing. The game play to me is honestly what makes a game. Missile Command on my 2600 is one of my favorite games. Why? Because its fun and simple. I will never judge a game like that on its graphics.

You also can NEVER compare a game that was made 20+ years ago to one made in this era. You don't think if back in '85 they had technology like they do today, NES games wouldn't look like the ones now? So really you can't compare. In 20 years people will be saying the PS3s apparently "amazing" graphics will be bad.

And also back around the NES' time, games like Super Mario Bros 3, and Kirbys Adventure had great graphics for the system. And you ask any modern gamer if those look good they will say they look like something made on Microsoft Paint. I used to think the N64 had killer graphics and they were a big step up from the NES and SNES. But, that still doesn't mean the NES/SNES games were garbage. A few games that have bad graphics but are still amazing include Doom, and Starfox 64. Doom was the second FPS game ever made and without it we would have the Call of Dutys, or Halos or whatever of today. And the graphics are so sloppy but its still amazing and has killer music. Then look at Starfox 64. You look like your just flying polygons arround, but it doesn't mean its bad.I mean where else would we get "Do a Barrel Roll!" from?

Another thing I tend to say is how people shouldn't be playing emulators or ROMs. (as they are illegal lol) but at least these people appreciate the games of the past and don't mind the graphics.

Thats all for now, I may come back to this.

 

[Immortal_One]

Games should not be based on graphics alone. Yes, graphics are a part that shouldn't be neglected when judging a video game, but they shouldn't be the main thing to judge a game on. Even then, graphics shouldn't be judged on face value. Graphics should be judged on how they relate to the time they are from. Take Star Fox on the SNES for example. By today's standard, it's graphics are crude and unappealing. Back when it first came out though, the graphics were revolutionary. That game was one of our first glimpses into the third dimention in a video game.

With that said, graphics aren't as big a deal as graphical ingenuity is in a game. As Ver-go-a-go-go said X-Men: Origins was nothing more than a nice-looking beat-'em-up. It had little variation in gameplay and the storyline is already layed out for it with the movie and all. Games like Gears of War, which have no substance to them in terms of gameplay are games that I just never got into. I miss the days of games like Megaman, Zelda and Metroid on the NES and SNES. Graphics weren't a big deal, they were more of just icing on the cake rather than the main course.

 

[basement24]

But, that still doesn't mean the NES/SNES games were garbage. A few games that have bad graphics but are still amazing.

Very true. There's next gen games out there that pale in comparison to some original NES games in terms of gameplay. They're all flash and no substance, and if there's no substance in a video game, then you're just looking at some pretty pictures. If that's the case, then I'd rather buy a coffee table book of the graphics and forego the pain of playing the bad game!