How much do people really care about graphics?

also we need to know that graphics are often important in simulation games, like sports and racing genres

we know that forza and gran turismo wouldnt look great with gt pro series graphics, we know many people wouldnt be looking forward into next generation of sports games like pro evo without evolving graphics, as part of (gameplay + graphics + AI)

 

I view graphics as important as gameplay. Story is a distant third however unless it's an rpg.

 

so i think graphics are sweet bonus. why isnt graphics important??? do you want to play games in ps1 quality when most devs can afford to show off more of how it looks like???

 

Because, as I said, graphics will continue to evolve and in a few years down the line, it'll be crap. If the graphics do hold its own in a few years (again 6-8 years), it'll mean graphics haven't improved much and can't justify the price for a 500 dollar video card. Afterall, why buy when you can get graphics just as good a few years ago.

 

Cant disagree more, the latest games that I played are HL(1, in software mode), Halo (1, MP) and The Last Vikings (for the first time) also played several N64 games (eg LoZ:OOT, PD...) and I got suprissed by myself that I still think those games look very good.


So what this say about the importance of gfx/specs in games, just one IMO, they are as important as the game really need them to have the same game and still looking good, of curse this isnt related with time/relative specs or old games wouldnt look good but with some art made for some specs.

Still I find them very important because they still allow for new gameplay elements and new art so new forms of games.

 

I don't know about you but a GRAW or GOW with PS1 graphics on a 480p EDTV trumphs a PACMAN using all the graphical bells and whistles of the PS3 at 1080p.

 

I respect your opinion, but you know it's true that the graphics don't hold up to today's games. Do you believe the games you mentioned looks good to the average joe or to the next generation of kids who grew up with Gears, when they're old enough to play games? Yes, many of the games you mentioned still looks good, but it can't compare especially with the older titles. HL1, Halo, or Last Vikings are that old yet afterall so their age won't show as quickly.

If we look at it from a gameplay stand point, PD, OOT, Goldeneye, and many great games before the 3D area, their gameplay can stand up to any game today. They might look good in their days, but their graphics can't hold a candle to today's best looking games. Of course just cause they don't hold their own doesn't mean you can't still like the way the game looks.

 

Good graphics creates hype, but good gameplay creates classic. GOW couldn't have sold 2 million if it only provided eye candy.

 

MS and Sony made graphical powerhouses for the simple reason that these machines have to last 5+ years in the marketplace and they won't always be expensive to produce/buy either. It remains to be seen whether Wii graphics limit sales a few years down the road. The right peripheral could turn PS3 or X360 into a Wii, but a Wii can never be turned into a PS3 or X360. This may become significant as well.

The other thing to note is that sometimes graphics = gameplay. You can't make a Splinter Cell without great shadowing. You can't make a GoW without crazy blood/particle effects, or a Forza 2 without realistic driving physics and track/car detail. That's part of the gameplay. The simulation has to be at a certain level that last generation graphics won't support. The reason that the Wii works for Nintendo is that they've never tried to make realistic simulations or even delve into realism in any way.

 

Some of the reasoning in this thread is amazing....

All console makers have one goal in mind: Sell consoles, and sell games and peripherals for those consoles. Now game developers don't have endless resources, so they are only making games for a subset of the total platforms available. This creates the following simplified effect, logically:

- Console makers create new consoles in order to keep sales going.
- Game makers are encouraged by the console makers to build new games for the latest consoles, both in the form of development resources and of course to ensure long-term sales of their games by building for consoles which will continue to have a large enough (active) installed base during the shelf life of the game.
- Customers see little choice but to buy new consoles at some point, given their desire for new games and/or new technology in the new consoles offering a perceived improvement (either realised or potential).

Now obviously new consoles have to offer improvements over the previous generation in order to sell themselves. I would say this comes in the form of various factors such as more processing power, better audio, better visual quality, but can also be improved or revised controller technology. I'd even class network connectivity and multiplayer options as another key selling point for a modern console. I am willing to accept that very very few gamers will be interested in a console just for improved audio qualities, so the key factors encouraging sales are graphics, realism (due to more processing power or due to being immersed in multiplayer with ever more opponents/options/friends), and improved controllers (which I guess is also about realism in the end).

To me this makes Nintendo's choice just as legitimate in the console market as the choice of Sony/Microsoft. While the latter two chose to aim for HD graphics, Nintendo clearly decided that the "DVD quality" SDTV would cope with another generation and took the controller as their main improvement. Only time will tell which gamble pays off.

So then we come to graphics. I don't see graphics as the sole factor, I see a combination of all 4 selling-points as being vital to the success of a console platform - and that combination will always be technology limited, so it's all about the best compromise. Oh, and lets not forget about the need for software which can actually realise the potential of the platform, obviously.

 

Totally agree.

 

It takes no innovation to produce something like Xenos, Xenon, Cell or Blu-ray?

 

The Xbox 360 has got both ends of the stick, it does have live arcade afterall. And since theres been over 20 million arcade games sold to date just goes to prove that its not all graphics (arcade games do not exactly have wonderful graphics). If it werent for the excellent online play of graw, gow, and rainbow 6 I probably would have played the arcade games more than the retail games.

 

Allow me to clear up this whole gameplay vs graphics arguement. Some people like to say one is better then the other.. *ahem*

Gameplay + Graphics > Gameplay

Thank you, have a good night.

 

Graphics does not just mean more detailed and shinier models, a powerfull machine will give you better sound, animations, physics, ai, which all contribute to gameplay, and also better opportunities for the story.

Maybe some people see Wii as more "real", because you can communicate with the game more "real", but I also think it's important how the game can communicate with you if you want to make it real.
For example, maybe youre playing a scene where you are to have a fight with a person. And on the Wii, it would be real because you have two controllers that you can hit freely with and you'll hit in the game in the same way you move yor hands in real life. On the other hand, if you would do it on PS3, you could make an opponent that acts back at you with great animations and intelligence, and the scene and character would look more convincing, and also effects, like if manage to make a hit, it will look real as in Fight Night.

When it come to HD, I think it good when you want to be precise, for example if you're playing an FPS, if you have a higher resolution you can be more precise when aming, and that may be used in a game that's more of a simulator, like operation flashpoint.

 

Stay on topic. Keep the discussion whether or not Console manufacturer Y is innovative or the Xbox Live discussion out of here.

 

How important are graphics?


How many PS3 or 360 games can you name that absolutely could not have been done on an Xbox or PS2 if the graphics were sacrificed?


The primary reason why people buy new systems is the graphics upgrade. The games rarely do what could not be done gameplay-wise on previous gen systems.

 

I don't know about everyone else but for me it's very simple

Good graphics + Good Gameplay > Bad graphics + Good Gameplay

 

As long as you include good framerates with good gameplay, I agree. However, this formula often doesn't work as well when taken into consideration in designing the game.

For instance, it is easy to say that launching all the nuclear waste into the sun would solve our nuclear waste problems, but how successful is it to get to that point, and what failures are possible on the way that might make us think twice about such a project?

With increasing graphics in many games I've seen increasingly poor gameplay. This isn't a steadfast rule, but the curve is there. There is a formula here I believe. A formula of this: "good graphics < scope < development time > attention to other content > good gameplay". 3rd party programs such as Speed Tree are making an appearance that will help lower the scope of a project, but good graphics is still going to take a large amount of time out of a project.

I review Gamasutra's Job listings every week and roughly 4 out of 10 job offerings have something to do with graphics alone.

Because of this, I don't want good graphics all the time, at least state-of-the-art, because the scope of this often destroys possibilities when it comes to unique content and good gameplay, the two elements I consider most important.