| Welcome to the PGRF gaming community! Everyone here is very friendly, so don't hesitate to say hi and engage in some video game discussion with all of us! From retro to modern, there's no discrimination here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask the moderators and administrators! Have fun. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free! Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Graphics don't make the game | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2010, 06:00 AM (2,143 Views) | |
| JholmanGames | Mar 3 2010, 06:00 AM Post #1 |
|
Level 3
  ![]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/PDorr3/forum/endingpip.png)
|
Hey guys, thanks for taking the time to open up my thread. I'm hoping to do more posts like this in the future since I have a few different topics I'd like to touch upon. Anyway, here we go. Last night, I was playing Counter-Strike with a friend in a server I frequent. Another person I know joined the server and asked if I had Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. I said I did, but I didn't play it very much since I spent more time on Counter-Strike and Left 4 Dead 2. Another person in the server asked the first guy why he liked Modern Warfare 2 and guy responded "Well, it has better graphics than CS". Unfortunately, I hear statements like this far too often, so I'm going to try and touch upon this tonight. Right off the bat, let me admit something. I'm not the biggest Call of Duty fan in the world. While I don't hate Modern Warfare 2, I really didn't find it to be as good as some claim. I've played it now for around 50 hours and have tried VERY hard to like it, but I just seem to lose interest. Hopefully, this statement won't piss off any COD fans. Everyone has probably heard some variant of the quote "Beauty fades, but dumb is forever". I'd like put a twist on that quote - "Graphics fade, but gameplay is forever". Basically, what I mean by that is that graphics constantly improve, so no matter how good something looks today, there will always be something better in the future. To continue on the Call of Duty and Counter-Strike comparison, I'd like to look at their longevity. Counter-Strike's first beta launched in 1999 and version 1.6, which is the same version that is being played today, was released in 2003. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 came out in 2009. Will it still be being played actively online in 2016? Now, I understand that there will be further sequels in the Call of Duty franchise which will very likely put a damper on COD:MW2's future. However, despite games like Counter Strike: Condition Zero and Counter Strike: Source, regular ol' Counter-Strike 1.6 still remains strong. Back when I started playing the game in 2004, the graphics in CS looked quite good. Now, they're clearly very dated, yet myself (and many others) still play the game regularly. Why is that? Well, because while the graphics may have faded, the gameplay has stayed as fun as ever. I do want to say that I'm not trying to imply that COD:MW2 is a bad game in anyway or that the graphics are the only thing it has going for it. I'm just trying to work off the argument that I heard on why the game was supposedly better than Counter-Strike. Now, let's touch on some RPGs. I think it is pretty universal to say that a good majority of people who have played Chrono Trigger find it enjoyable. Even today, while the graphics from 1995 may be outdated, the gameplay is just as good as ever, and it is still widely looked upon as one of the best RPGs ever--15 years later! Now, let's imagine another hypothetical situation. Let's say when Final Fantasy 13 drops later this month, people find out that it is an absolutely awful game. Let's imagine that the story is crap, the characters bland, and the number of glitches unmeasurable. Even if that were the case, I can guarantee that some people would love it simply because they find the graphics appealing. I'd be willing to bet that 15 years later those same people would find absolutely no appeal in Final Fantasy 13. The graphics would be dated while the game mechanics would still be horrendous. This is what I'm talking about. How about Superman 64? For the time, the graphics were pretty good. Now, the game looks awful, and the gameplay flaws remain intact. Graphics are, without a doubt, an important part of any game. It's certainly important for game companies to work hard on the graphics, as they can, without a doubt, add to the fun of any game. However, when companies become overly focused on graphics and fail to address other important aspects of gameplay, the overall 'life' of the game is absolutely pummeled. So, next time you sit down to play a game, try to look at other aspects other than just the graphics, and remember that while those graphics may look great today, they will be outdated in the future and better graphics will come along. However, a game with a great story, fun gameplay, and a great soundtrack to go along with nice-looking graphics will thrive for years after its supposed competition has faded away. Please leave your opinions -- and please don't flame me cause I don't think COD:MW2 is the best game ever. Also, please remember that, like I said, I have nothing against COD:MW2, the debate in the first couple paragraphs was ONLY referring to what the guy in the Counter-Strike server said. I know COD has more going for it than just the graphics. Thanks for taking the time to read this mammoth of a post! I really do appreciate it! -Joe Edited by JholmanGames, Mar 3 2010, 06:08 AM.
|
 I can easily be contacted on: Xbox Live: JoeHolman1 PSN: JoeHolman YouTube: JholmanGames Steam: Xaviopunk@hotmail.com Twitter: JholmanGames | |
 |
 
|
| JholmanGames | Mar 3 2010, 06:01 AM Post #2 |
|
Level 3
|
Welllllllll, it looked much better when my paragraphs were indented, but meh, hopefully it's readable as-is. |
|
I can easily be contacted on: Xbox Live: JoeHolman1 PSN: JoeHolman YouTube: JholmanGames Steam: Xaviopunk@hotmail.com Twitter: JholmanGames | |
|
|
|
| pokemonzrpg | Mar 3 2010, 08:00 AM Post #3 |
Zach Archer
|
I completely agree. I hear that statement much too often as well, it usually comes from people with no knowledge about video games what-so-ever. Although graphics are a small supporting factor (they have to be atleast bareable), like you said, the graphics certainly don't make the game. That is why whenever I review games, I decide to leave out graphics from the mix and just base it on gameplay alone. If the graphics are so horrible it's unplayable I understand, but other than that, no one should really even mention graphics when comparing video games. All of the new HD games/systems have drove it to this, really imo. This is often one of the reasons the Wii gets bashed by 360 and PS3 fanboys. If only these people knew what they were talking about when they spoke like this... |
| |
|
|
|
| Draven26 | Mar 3 2010, 08:27 AM Post #4 |
 
|
I hear that comment way too often as well and its really sad. I have a friend who will only play games that feature realistic looking blood and every other game to him sucks...That mindset to me is just rediculous. Its all about the gameplay |
www.youtube.com/draven2626 | |
|
|
|
| stratamaster78 | Mar 3 2010, 11:20 AM Post #5 |
Level 6
|
@JholmanGames - Awesome post my man. You made Hammer meet Nail on this topic. I hear people put graphics above gameplay all the time. I can not stand to hear "so and so game was great back in the day but it is obviously graphically outdated now". These statements are made with the mindset that just because the graphics of old games are not on par with today's graphics that those old games are not great anymore. It is assinine. I would much rather play great NES, SNES, Genesis games etc etc with 8-bit/16-bit graphics and phenomenal and resposive gameplay than a new generation game that is all style and no substance. Gameplay, fun-factor, and replay value are what make games great....not graphics. Edited by stratamaster78, Mar 3 2010, 11:23 AM.
|
 | |
|
|
|
| browland1 | Mar 3 2010, 12:19 PM Post #6 |
|
I agree 100% with this topic. Good graphics are nice to have in a game, but as I am fond of saying, it's not the pretty wrapping that counts so much as the complete package. I find that people who feel that graphics are the only important aspect of a game are only concerned with style and very little focus is placed on substance. A perfect example for me would be the Castlevania series; parts 1 and 3 on the NES are among the best games every made. The newer 3-D incarnations might look better from a graphical standpoint, but the gameplay is nowhere close to being as good as the older titles. An ideal game would have a good balance of visual and gameplay qualities, but even the best graphics cannot save a game that lacks more important things such as a good story and tight controls. Your saying that beauty fades is very accurate when it comes to gaming; if the is mediocre at it's core, the fun won't last once you see past the fancy visuals. I don't want to generalize too much, but I find a lot of graphics-obsessed gamers tend to be younger people who did not grow up playing the 8-bit or 16-bit consoles. They started out with the advanced systems and it is hard for approach older games without feeling like they are taking a step backwards, even the classic titles that blow this current generations games out of the water. In that regard, I feel fortunate to have experienced the golden era and to have seen gaming progress and evolve over the past 25 years. I can appreciate the graphics as being "good for it's time" and I don't feel like I'm regressing when I go back to an old NES or Atari game. |
| |
|
|
|
| Shaq Attack | Mar 3 2010, 12:48 PM Post #7 |
Level 8
|
I totally agree I can easily play any old game and love it, to be honest graphics don't matter what so ever to me. I just look at it like this if the game has amazing graphics it's just a little nice thing nothing to get excited about. |
 | |
|
|
|
| Kharnivore2099 | Mar 3 2010, 12:57 PM Post #8 |
Retroverdose
|
Graphics mean almost nothing to me. Years ago i used to play some text adventures and they were good fun...spent a lot of time on them. Dont play much morern games now, bioshock2, modern warfare etc. Im not sure if its just cause they've been hyped up too much or its from people saying, "ooohhh but it looks amazing!". I thought street fighter 4 looked awesome but it played like a piece of crap. Stuck on the 16 bit versions and me and my mates had a much better night. Its nice to have a pretty game but it means nothing really at the end of the day. |
 Twitch Channel Youtube Channel | |
|
|
|
| Porcelain | Mar 3 2010, 02:37 PM Post #9 |
Level 6
|
Very nice article on your point of view, I agree with you, many opt for graphics rather than a story to back it up, or actual gameplay. I think graphics paired with a really good story, gameplay features that are fun and non tedious, as well as a good camera, just overall balance out the game to be more of a powerhouse than just graphics alone. Though I say this I feel kind of bad because even though the N64 houses some of my little nostalgia favs, I really dislike the systems 3D graphics capability, it's a hit and miss, some games just unfortunately don't age well in that respect, I was never one for the jagged edges, and the awkward clunky type of movements, ugh. It maybe different because I never owned a 64 till this year, and my only experience with it was through friends. The PS1 didn't do any better graphic wise, but it was more heavily in my life that I guess I turn a blind eye towards that and still play my favs. Though if a game has great graphics, but the camera is wonky, or the controls are broken, and it's really tedious I drop it. Nothing will save a game from sucking, no matter how pretty it looks. For many people it's unfortunately their biggest selling point. |
  http://afewpixelsshort.blogspot.com/ my bloggity blog | |
|
|
|
| browland1 | Mar 3 2010, 03:11 PM Post #10 |
|
It is important to differentiate between good graphics overall and graphical problems such as screen tearing, pop-in, etc. To be honest, these problems never really bothered me as long as they didn't impact the gameplay. For example, Assassin's Creed 2 has a ton of pop-in and it is very noticeable, however the rest of the game looks gorgeous and the gameplay is solid, so it's easy to overlook these flaws. There are some games that are buggy and glitchy to the point of being unplayable, and not even good graphics can save them. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| FisHeaD | Mar 3 2010, 03:30 PM Post #11 |
Team Hoff!
|
It's just the progression of technology to the point where the graphics are near close to realism. Most people just want the latest technology because its there. All my friends have touch screen phones which are more expensive and much slimmer than my mobile but they both do the same job (my phone is just cheaper). Obviously, I think gameplay is the most important factor for a game. I could of mistaken L4D for an Xbox game if I never saw the console but I still thought the game play was fantastic. |
|
|
|
| matt456p | Mar 3 2010, 07:24 PM Post #12 |
Otherwise known as Matt
|
Great post Joe. I hear so much hate for the Wii and, go figure, the PS3 for having "bad graphics." Who cares? I don't think I know a single person who won't play the original Super Mario Bros. And why should they? People aree so concerned with hardware strength they forget about what matters most. |
|
I'm Matt. You may know me. My Twitter - matt456p My Personal Blog - Station456 My Comics Blog My Whatever Else Blog - Station456 Productions | |
|
|
|
| JholmanGames | Mar 3 2010, 07:30 PM Post #13 |
|
Level 3
|
Thanks for all the comments guys, you all brought up some great points. |
|
I can easily be contacted on: Xbox Live: JoeHolman1 PSN: JoeHolman YouTube: JholmanGames Steam: Xaviopunk@hotmail.com Twitter: JholmanGames | |
|
|
|
| Kharnivore2099 | Mar 3 2010, 08:15 PM Post #14 |
|
Retroverdose
|
Going to be investing in a wii actually, its range of games on virtual console is far superior to 360 and ps3. Never knew how good it was cause no one i know uses wii that much. |
|
Twitch Channel Youtube Channel | |
|
|
|
| OceanKirbydee | Mar 3 2010, 08:16 PM Post #15 |
A ghost in the machine
|
Oh god yes, thank you Jholman thank you for bringing this up! I am in 8th Grade, and YOU HAVE NO IDEA how hard it is to find someone who actually appreciates game play over graphics! Many of them don't even know who MARIO is! (No joke!) And they only play two games ever, Call Of Duty and Madden >:(! And they call themselves gamers... 
|
|
My youtube account! Check out my project!   | |
|
|
|
| Scott | Mar 3 2010, 08:25 PM Post #16 |
Licensed Dark Cloud Fanboy
|
My brother bought an xbox 360 elite just for modern warfare 2 and madden 10.  They are still gamers, as they do play games, but they are simply not educated gamers. I can't believe they haven't heard about about mario.  I ♥ assassin's creed 2. |
 Follow me! http://twitter.com/ScotttheGamer | |
|
|
|
| matt456p | Mar 3 2010, 08:37 PM Post #17 |
|
Otherwise known as Matt
|
I am in the sam situation you're in, but maybe not as bad. Do you know how hard it is to get a mature conversation about the Wii or a Zelda game or whatever? It's complete crap! I honestly cannot stand bashing great games for no apparrent reason; if you don't like, say, Mario Galaxy (I know I use this game as an example in these types of arguments A LOT, but... live with it, lol), that's fine, but I want more of an explanation than "It's gay" or "It's Stupid." And it really frustrates me when they go on talking about how CoD MW2 is the best game ever after they say something like this. If you think that, that's absolutly fine; it's a good game. But support it with better responses than "It's the best!" To me, CoD MW2 seems like MW1, a game that actually did a lot for gaming (helped evolve online gaming along with Halo 3), with more maps, better graphics, and more kill streaks or whatever. Mario Galaxy, on the other hand, perfects the runnning on the walls upside-down and side-ways gameplay element, shows you the benefits of motion control, and delivers some of the best 3D level design in gaming. |
|
I'm Matt. You may know me. My Twitter - matt456p My Personal Blog - Station456 My Comics Blog My Whatever Else Blog - Station456 Productions | |
|
|
|
| ps3girlgamer1990 | Mar 3 2010, 08:38 PM Post #18 |
Lexie
|
I so agree with you here. Though the first thing that gets me into a game is the graphics. On some games with crappy graphics it is the controls and sound tracks. Like tony hawk pro skater. That game at the time had the best graphics and the controls and sound track were awesome so it was very well rounded. Now tony hawks underground i can't stand the graphics but the controls and sound track is what got me into it especially the story. Battlefield bad company was very well rounded too. Now I got bad company 2 in today and so far it's awesome. I'm about 10 minutes into this game and already I've fallen in love with it. So I agree with you when you say that graphics fade but game play is forever. |
|
(\_/) (* *) (^^) http://www.youtube.com/ps3girlgamer1990 PSN gamertag: gamergirl0990 http://www.myspace.com/gamergirl0990 http://us.playstation.com/publictrophy/index.htm?onlinename=gamergirl0990  | |
|
|
|
| Nathan | Mar 3 2010, 08:42 PM Post #19 |
|
Nice Post. Graphics mean about nothing to me also. Execpt in a couple cases, in which the graphics make the gameplay terrible like bubsy 3D or Aquaman <-- Lol @ that game. But it's all about the gameplay to me, I go and play nes,snes,gen. Games all the time and it's completely fine. |
 ..  My Xat Chat My Facebook My Last.fm 
| |
|
|
|
| NostalgiaKing | Mar 4 2010, 03:29 AM Post #20 |
These aren't the droids we're looking for.
|
Completely agree! "Oh my god, look at these graphics! They're beautiful!" "Awesome, how's the gameplay?" "Will you look at these graphics?!" "Um, yeah, how are the controls?" "Oh, these graphics!" "Uh, yeah, "photorealistic" graphics that aren't jarring at all. How's the story? The controls? Anything?" "Gra-" "Graphics?" "Graphics!" It's pretty sad that some people will put up with a mediocre game because it has nice graphics. |
  Follow me on Twitter! --- My Backloggery --- YouTube --- Media Moths | |
|
|
|
| JholmanGames | Mar 4 2010, 03:37 AM Post #21 |
|
Level 3
|
It's like if you see a pretty girl walking down the street - her looks might draw you in, but if that's the only thing she has goin' for her..might wanna look elsewhere  ^ I know some people will instantly disagree with that statement, hahah |
|
I can easily be contacted on: Xbox Live: JoeHolman1 PSN: JoeHolman YouTube: JholmanGames Steam: Xaviopunk@hotmail.com Twitter: JholmanGames | |
|
|
|
| browland1 | Mar 4 2010, 10:31 AM Post #22 |
|
LOL - perfect analogy! Some gamers only go for good graphics and dismiss games that don't meet the current standard. My younger cousin is just such a person; she loves her 360 and only goes for games with the best graphics. I tried to introduce her to NES games on the Wii virtual console and she was all on about how the graphics are terrible and she doesn't understand why anyone would play something like that. I tried to explain how this is going back to the roots of video games and many of the games she enjoys today would not be around if it wasn't for the innovations in the past generations. This fell on deaf ears - she only said "Dude, this is 2010!" Kids today, I tell ya! |
|
| |
|
|
|
| ps3girlgamer1990 | Mar 4 2010, 11:09 AM Post #23 |
|
Lexie
|
Yeah people today go for graphics. Which sucks but nothing you can do |
|
(\_/) (* *) (^^) http://www.youtube.com/ps3girlgamer1990 PSN gamertag: gamergirl0990 http://www.myspace.com/gamergirl0990 http://us.playstation.com/publictrophy/index.htm?onlinename=gamergirl0990 | |
|
|
|
| MrTalldude2882 | Jul 26 2010, 02:11 PM Post #24 |
Level 3
|
the worse graphics for a game is shadow madness for ps1, it was my biggest disappointment when i bought it oh so long ago |
| |
|
|
|
| appletsauce | Jul 26 2010, 06:59 PM Post #25 |
3DS
|
Hard to say. Graphics aren't my top priority, but I like my games to look nice. Unlike what some people think, some of us did care about graphics in the 8 and 16-bit days. We just had different standards. I still think a lot of the SNES games that I grew up with looked good back then and still think they look good even today, like Chrono Trigger. It's not like I'm just tolerating bad graphics because the gameplay's great. No, I think the game still looks really good. I prefer 2D sprite-based graphics to 3D any day, and I haven't seen too many 2D games on newer consoles that look significantly more impressive than the best SNES games. I think the SNES was somewhat of an apex for 2D sprite-based games, although games like Trine look pretty good. I tend to in general think of the SNES as the system with the most good-looking 2D games. I'd rather have beautiful 2D games over bad-looking 3D games anyday. 8-bit NES games are more tolerable than some nasty-3D PS1 games because for the type of graphics that they are, the NES is much nicer looking. But overall I do agree the graphics don't matter as much, but then again, a lot of older games' graphics were just a completely different style and not necessarily inferior versions of what we have now. I really like 2D graphics, so a lot of old games still look good to me. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Gaming · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
11:47 AM Jul 13