Graphics have been said to enhance game-play.

#21Xeeh_BitzPosted 12/6/2012 8:56:58 PM
jungfreud posted...
Xeeh_Bitz posted...
jungfreud posted...
Good examples, and I agree. But graphics made a big jump last generation (if you didn't have a PC) and as a result all the teenagers are convinced that every new generation is going to have the same gap. Without the HD transition you won't see a massive jump in graphical fidelity, that's just how it is. If Sony or Microsoft want to sit on their hands until a new, Super HD standard becomes prevalent than they are welcome to do that.


They've all had big jumps

NES = SNES = N64 = PS2 = PS3

Compare NES games to SNES, big difference.. sure.. no difference if you look at it now because they both look old and dated, but then after playing a NES for years and going to SNES, you' noticed a big difference

Same with N64 to a PS2, big difference as well.

Also, don't kid yourself.. when you say HD, you mean 720P? LOL majority of games are native 720P, but next generation they'll be 1080P native along with proper AA, etc.. you haven't seen nothing yet



You make a good point, but I think my point stands as it relates to the last gen. Wii just looked terrible when you compare it with 360/PS3. But it still won the generation, and for me at least, had the best games (XBC, SSB, MK). But I can't deny that when I popped in Uncharted 2 or Gears of War 3 I was mesmerized. I don't think that kind of graphical difference will exit with this gen unless a higher standard of television becomes prevalent and Sony or MS goes for it.

Yes, the jump to 1080p with full effects is going to look good, but I think the WiiU can go there. So there is little room for growth for the other consoles.


Yeah, graphics are not everything but they really do help with quite a few games. It's always nice to have that option because I do get tired of side scrolling 2D Marios, great for casual play, relaxing but sometimes I want some great immersion

and I use to think every generation that graphics could get no better, I remember thinking PS1 graphics were amazing and fairly realistic until a couple years ago I replayed a PS1 game and was like, what the hell is wrong with my TV, did games really look this bad. There is still a lot of room for improvement graphic wise.
---
To be fair, the bible has more plot holes than ME3. I wouldn't be listening either - Pies12
#22MathewManson(Topic Creator)Posted 12/6/2012 8:57:23 PM
Blobs_ posted...
MathewManson posted...
BigAl519 posted...
MathewManson posted...
swordza posted...
if you want a great game, graphics play just as big of a role as gameplay.

Look at Starcraft for example, that game was shown with the WC2 engine and people hated it, then Blizz made a better graphics engine and people all of a suddan loved it.


People hate Skyrim, look how good the graphics are on that. "People" can't be used to talk about everybody, we all have a different perspective on these subjective matters.


Skyrim was a top selling, GOTY game. How is that people hating it? Just because a minority of "cool cats" on GFAQS put the game down constantly because it was popular does not mean its hated...


I don't live on GameFAQs. I'm talking everywhere online and offline--many people dislike/hate Skyrim. Many people dislike and hate many popular games...popularity =/= quality.


Ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinion man. I understand if you don't like skyrim, because some people don't. BUT, most people do because of its epic story, the open world, the good music, wide range of customization, and smooth gameplay. Not to mention the overall feel of adventure that only games like Legend of Zelda and Dragon Quest have been able to give a player.

Arguing over a game being "good" or "bad" is redundant, because everyone sees it differently. My friend calls it a good game, while my other friend thinks it's a bad game. Both are right, because games are extremely personal experiences. How much fun you have with a game determines if it's good or bad to you, as well as with someone else.

So tl;dr a game can be bad in someone's eyes and good in another person's eyes. Neither person is wrong, they just have different opinions, ok?


I like Skyrim... The only thing I could say that ever bothered me was the combat being shallow and the bugs every now and then.
---
I'm not man enough...to be human.
#23Blobs_Posted 12/6/2012 9:02:20 PM
Aaaannd back on topic, gameplay makes a game, not graphics. Graphics are essentially just eye-candy, and don't add anything really meaningful to a game. Although most people I ask think that graphics are more important, they really aren't looking deep enough into a game. If someone were to make a game with great art, backgrounds, and colorful sprites, but say the controls were horrible and you did the same thing over again, it would be boring and not too fun to play (Unless you're really into that.) In the end, graphics can't fix an ultimately broken game. Gameplay does, because that's the core foundation of a game.

For example, imagine a company that made really good looking computers, with a really nice looking GUI (not well functioning mind you.) Now imagine if the computer was hard as f*** to navigate through, and was not compatible with anything. MOST people wouldn't like computer/OS because it was pretty much broken. Even if it looked nice, it would be a mess.

Well there's 20 min of my life I'll never get back.
---
The Gelatinous, Squishy, Tasty Blob of the Kid Icarus: Uprising Board.
I am a blob. Please refrain from eating me.
#24SolisPosted 12/6/2012 9:30:46 PM
MathewManson posted...
Heaps of people have said that "Graphics do matter! They enhance the gameplay!"


And they do. Play any of those games at low resolution and at low settings, and then play them at high resolution at high settings. You'll find the latter to result in a markedly improved experience, in every example.

I mean hell, I remember all the complaints people had back when Diablo 2 was released and many of the graphical effects were Glide-only (especially colored lighting, which affected the visual indication of many spells and status effects). If graphics didn't help the game, then noone would've cared about those missing effects. The perspective option also gave the game a much better sense of depth to allow you to discern the game environment better.
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
#25rocketdischargePosted 12/6/2012 9:32:58 PM
in what universe is Halo 2 better than Halo 3?
---
Sagat nerfed? He can Tiger Uppercut the wing off the plane!
#26Baha05Posted 12/6/2012 9:33:32 PM
Graphics only enhance the presentation of a game, not gameplay, though there are exceptions to certain games that make objectives hard to find due to graphics. Most of these however where around the 8 to 16 bit era of gaming.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail
#27StopthinkPosted 12/6/2012 9:40:04 PM
Nintendo fanboys still trying to convince themselves that graphics don't matter? Not surprised
---
imo for the tight asses
#28Baha05Posted 12/6/2012 9:41:14 PM
Stopthink posted...
Nintendo fanboys still trying to convince themselves that graphics don't matter? Not surprised


Because they don't in terms of gameplay and in terms of presentation you can make retro styled games or games that are polished enough but still not as great looking be fun.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail
#29StopthinkPosted 12/6/2012 9:44:44 PM
Yea, I'm sure you'd all rather play Mario Kart on an 8-bit console. Please dig your head out of your asses.
---
imo for the tight asses
#30SSJ4CHRISPosted 12/6/2012 9:46:27 PM
Of course graphics enhance gameplay. A well-controlled game that's beautiful to look at makes it that much better.
---
Pokemon White FC: 0346 8604 2225 PSN: phayro_rip
People Only Like Obama, that's the motto Romney, P.O.L.O.