Do Graphics Matter?

[demonmike04]

Graphics are nice, but they dont convince me to play certain games.

 

For the current Wii graphics, its the first wave in the entire consoles life. Wii sports doesnt need good graphics, its got its charm and its not the message its trying to get across.

Red steel is awesome for the wii, 2nd best graphics out of the current wii games.

 

But back ontopic, graphics dont matter depending on genre for me. Horror games are a genre that relies heavily on graphics. Like come on, your playing a game such as Resident evil 4, then all of a sudden the original Cyber demon for doom 2 appears. Instead of crapping your pants, you laugh.

 

Racing sims such as GT need good graphics. It doesnt feel as refreshing unless the environment looks real, the terrain effects look good etc.

 

Sports titles too, if they were still done in the sense of retro games still, good graphics wont be needed. But fifa and pro-evo have evolved so much you can see the players. Its not really needed, but its still another sense of immersion.

 

Also, graphics do count if the game does infact look awful. What I mean by awful is that you cant really see whats going on, such as Resi evil on the DS.

 

As for me, give me a good ol rpg with next to no graphics (yep, i even play text based) and im fine. Graphics dont mean much to me. Its just eye candy.

[mcj metroid]

Graphics are nice, but they dont convince me to play certain games.

 

For the current Wii graphics, its the first wave in the entire consoles life. Wii sports doesnt need good graphics, its got its charm and its not the message its trying to get across.

Red steel is awesome for the wii, 2nd best graphics out of the current wii games.

 

But back ontopic, graphics dont matter depending on genre for me. Horror games are a genre that relies heavily on graphics. Like come on, your playing a game such as Resident evil 4, then all of a sudden the original Cyber demon for doom 2 appears. Instead of crapping your pants, you laugh.

 

Racing sims such as GT need good graphics. It doesnt feel as refreshing unless the environment looks real, the terrain effects look good etc.

 

Sports titles too, if they were still done in the sense of retro games still, good graphics wont be needed. But fifa and pro-evo have evolved so much you can see the players. Its not really needed, but its still another sense of immersion.

 

Also, graphics do count if the game does infact look awful. What I mean by awful is that you cant really see whats going on, such as Resi evil on the DS.

 

As for me, give me a good ol rpg with next to no graphics (yep, i even play text based) and im fine. Graphics dont mean much to me. Its just eye candy.

 

 

this is all true and exactly my view.except i coulnt do text rpgs lol.Gt pro series was bad even on gamecube

[SimonM7]

Well, like someone said there's a distinction to be made here between good graphics and appealing visuals. I mean, if we use graphics as a technical term (which I think we should to avoid confusion) then SNES games by today's standards have bad graphics (or maybe basic or simple is a better term) but there are some that still look appealing. Otherwise there'd be no such thing as a good looking GBA or SP game, and I doubt anyone would argue that.

 

Likewise, a 360 game can have basic graphics but still be visually appealing, and while there are people who say they expect a certain standard from a new console, all I ask - personally - is that they're nice to look at, regardless of how admirable the poly count.

 

Even low res textures can look good if you know how to use them, if you see the limitations and apply them intuitively (Mario 64).

 

As with every other aspect of a game, the visuals are there to stimulate your senses. I don't think the intellectual thought of "you can see individual chest hairs!" is neccessarily the most important. Well, beyond novelty anyway.

[The Bard]

In accordance with Jasper's viewpoint, yeah, I think that is the case sometimes, games like Final Fantasy 7 or LttP require your imagination to run away with them, but something like Far Cry requires good graphics for the same level of immersion, because it doesn't have a great story or endearing characters going for it.

[Smiter]

Yeah, graphics do matter. But, at the same time, they don't need to be technically accomplished. It's the art style that matters the most; how well do the graphics compliment the game?

 

For example, Wario Ware's graphics are laughable on a technical level. Graphics whores may scoff at the basic 2D/3D cartoons. But - to me - the graphics do just fine because they perfectly compliment Wario's manic style!

 

As others have said, some people have dismissed Twilight Princess' graphics as "grotty" - but you'd have to be heartless to say the game didn't have a beautiful art style that brings Hyrule and its characters to life!

 

Give me a game with great art direction (e.g. Zelda, Secret of Mana, Beyond Good and Evil) over any game that pushes 1 billion polys a second but has sterile Uncanny Valley people and Generic City 243B.

[Noseblunt]

Graphics DO matter a lot if they are worse than in average gamecube game. But when the graphics are as great as in the best gamecube games, I don't care. Twilight Princess is an absolute masterpiece no matter the fact that graphics aren't the best Wii could do. As long as the graphics are that good and the game itself is great, I don't care about simple textures or boxy character models.

 

Of course, it also depends on genre and I can enjoy games like Wii Sporst or Wii Play without amazing graphics. But if the Metroid Prime 3 would look as simple as Wii Sports, i would seriously think is it worth buying.

[That Guy]

It's nice to see some good looking games, but more and more, I don't care. I play Zelda, I don't care about the GC textures, I play NES and SNES games, I don't care. I just got pass that point. What matters is that games look appealing and don't make your eyes bleed. For example, to me, ICO, SOTC, WW, Okami, VJ and TP, among others look better than any other next gen game, simply because there's a great art direction and there's an attention to detail, you can see that love was put into the game. Only graphics I can't stand are PS1 graphics, those hurt.

 

Again, this is pretty much what I was trying to say. I love the look of Viva Pinata, for example, more than I do GRAW, although I know what is technically more impressive.

 

I look at Wii Sports and despite simple graphics I think it looks nice, because of it's simple-ness. I still love the look of Shenmue even though that probably is looking like it's on the side of looking a bit poor.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Well, you pretty much need certain types of graphics or graphical styles in certain games.

 

Would a Fifa title be widely received if EA went for an "artistic" approach and not a realistic one?

 

With games like Zelda, you don't need them to look absolutely realistic. You may have effects like rain, water, and places like mountains, but look at the characters. Elf-like people, gorons, zoras. Realistic graphics like you would get with other games would not really fit here.

 

With something like Monkey Ball, it's a really colourful game, and I think that's partly due to make this game seem more fun. Colour sorta means that it's a bit wacky. If the monkeys actually looked like real monkeys, as in photo realism, I think it would be a too serious looking to be considered fun.

[Zechs Merquise]

Graphics don't matter. Let's face it. They don't matter. Why? Because I still love every moment in ocarina of time and mojara's mask. i treasure them in my heart. But not really one moment of the Wind Waker got me as much as these old games. I loved it, because, my imagination completed the game. What the graphics of that day and age did was give you the rough outlines, and your imagination did the rest. Now everything is so detailed, your imagination has no place at work. All the best games i remember have the worst graphics, but yet their all instant classics.

 

What çinstant classics have really great graphics? GTA looks like shit. Mario sunshine was not as good as Mario 64. The Wind Waker was not the great affaire that we had one Ocarina of Time.

 

Games need graphics, but they don't need detail. In my opinion it's up to the people to complete them. It's up to your imagination. And that's what i'm missing. Me filling in the blanks. And because there's no game that can really say it's bad-looking, I think it's time we find games that fill in the blanks. Beyond Good & Evil did that to me. Metroid did that with me.

 

Nostalgia is a wonderful thing!

[dabookerman]

MGS4 is not the prettiest next gen title around, blurry texture low polycounts graphical glitches, sure it's a beta, but it needs work.

 

I don't really mind polished MGS3 visuals though, yes I'm implying MGS4 looks unpolished.

 

Over 1 year left in development...

 

Environments are placeholders.

 

Everything else looks unbeatable.

[ultrajamie]

i think it's not just a matter of fit, but function...

 

sure an epic game like zelda, heavenly sword, and gears of war needs a certain level of acomplishment... but they also need graphics that don't hinder the flow of the game - kameo falls down here... by building complex-ish scenery, but then not giving the characters the ability to navigate it with any finese.

 

something like wii sports works because the clarity and simplicity on offer actually enhance the feedback of the game.

 

then you have games like far cry wii... which fall down because the graphics hinder the atomosphere, feedback, and function.

 

so, yes they do matter... but not in a bigger=better way... but in a 'you've got to think about the game's needs' way.

[c0Zm1c]

I'm wondering if the Wii is actually any more powerful than the Gamecube. Regardless of the rumoured better-than-Xbox specifications, of the five launch games I've played none of them suggest it is. And if it wasn't for Twilight Princess I'd think it was a good deal inferior! :shock:

 

I know these are only launch titles, and that the usual school of thought is that visuals improve over the course of a consoles life. But the Gamecube had the likes of Luigi's Mansion and Rogue Leader from day one, the Wii has nothing to prove it's any more powerful than the console it supercedes.

 

Nevertheless, apart from needing a component cable to remedy the awful blurring Wii games have on my television, the graphics do mean little to me. Twilight Princess is the best game I've played this generation, even if it does look like a last generation game.

[Jackster]

I'm wondering if the Wii is actually any more powerful than the Gamecube. Regardless of the rumoured better-than-Xbox specifications, of the five launch games I've played none of them suggest it is. And if it wasn't for Twilight Princess I'd think it was a good deal inferior! :shock:

 

I think that while the current Wii titles look like Gamecube games, we do have to remember that developers were actually told by Nintendo to practically make Gamecube games with the Wii Remote instead of Gamecube Controller for the Wii Launch, I'm guessing this is maybe because Nintendo were still playing with the hardware configuration up to the last minute.

 

I think we can all assume that the next wave of games will look much better.

[Zechs Merquise]

I think that while the current Wii titles look like Gamecube games, we do have to remember that developers were actually told by Nintendo to practically make Gamecube games with the Wii Remote instead of Gamecube Controller for the Wii Launch, I'm guessing this is maybe because Nintendo were still playing with the hardware configuration up to the last minute.

 

I think we can all assume that the next wave of games will look much better.

 

It's not a problem when games look like Gamecube games, the Gamecube produced some of the best looking (if not THE best looking) console games ever. It's when the games look like they could be done on the N64.

[AshMat]

\They do a little bit, but the graphics on Wii sports aren't brilliant, i mean the characters don't even have arms or legs, but everyone loves it still.

[Domstercool]

Depends on allsorts of factors. E.G Would the REmake be as good if it still looked like a n64 game?

[Guest Jordan]

Yes.

Graphics can both enchance and hinder gameplay.

[Zechs Merquise]

\They do a little bit, but the graphics on Wii sports aren't brilliant, i mean the characters don't even have arms or legs, but everyone loves it still.

 

I love the Wii Sports graphics, they are simple, clean and stylish. They suit the game and do the job perfectly. It's games like Far Cry that make my blood boil. Some games need more graphical power.

[pedrocasilva]

It's games like Far Cry that make my blood boil. Some games need better development budget and time.

Fixed, that's ubisoft for us.

 

still buying Red Steel and Rayman though.

[Librarian]

oh yes... graphics matter... just check out samantha fox' strippoker for the

C64...

I havent seen any footage of Farcry but it sounds pretty bad..

But I sort of thought the power of the last generation consoles suited my personal tast as far as visuals are concerned... but I also know that brilliant graphics is one of the most effective ways to promote a game.. it's like putting a naked beauty on the hood of a car your trying to sell... eye candy..

It sells more games than any review out there..

but what annoys me is the constant comparison done in the reviews.. they seem to mark down the Wii version because "its not as pretty as the Ps3 or the xbox911 version"..

[Problematique]

Well. Graphics do matter: they set the immediate tone and atmostphere of the game and if that's right then it'll absorb you more I think. Plus the game has to run at 30fps minimum (I'll allow just over 20 for PC gaming). Oh, and there shouldn't be any shocking graphical glitches either. Y'know, solidity issues, falling through the floor at a random spot where the developer forgot to make it solid.

 

The graphics on most GC games were pleasing enough. Tbh I don't care if a game hasn't bump mapped someone's pimply arse etc...I'm perfectly happy playing games which look nice but aren't exactly what you'd call "photorealistic" because...well. I like some sort of distinction between reality and gaming plus instead of playing a true-to-life game I'd rather just step outside.

[chillychili]

In my opinion, Warioware is a good example of a game, where graphics DON'T matter. But in many other games they matter.

[Problematique]

They matter more in sort of...'cinematic' games. Especially the lighting I think, that has a big effect. However. For me, as long as graphics are functional, fine. Pretty graphics should be no more htan a bonus tbh.

[xernobyl]

All I need is Twilight Princess with better textures. I don't need more than that.

[Jasper]

Even those textures don't really bother me. What does bother me: the frightening Zora's and those annoting fire-arrow aiming moblins. I hate moblins. With arrows. What dazzled me: the spectaculair Gorons and the size of Hyrule field. And about Twilight Princes being less vibrant than anny other Zelda, wel, it's true. The towns feel empty and soulless untill now. Really. Why is karakiko filled with babies from Link's hometown? Now if they made it vibrant it would be great.

 

But this sin't the zelda topic.