What bloody idiots!

[Alex DeLarge]

I got into an argument with some idiot at school today. The subject was game graphics. I said that graphics aren't that important so long as the game itself is well made and fun. The idiot and his friends however said that graphics are the most important element of a game and that if a game has bad graphics then it is automatically rendered unplayable. I got extremely stressed out after constant defence of my views so I left the classroom to calm down. Then I found out that the teacher that took me out had a gameboy, master system and N64, and she completely agreed with me. After putting up with some more crap from their end, we came to the agreement that they have their opinion and I have my opinion, but my opinion just happens to be correct.

 

discuss idiot gaming noobs and their strange theories.

[Dark]

Dude, both you and your teacher are complete idiots. Think about it, graphics are what define a game. Who cares about gameplay, does anyone really play video games for the fun of it anymore? No, you need graphics. That's why shit like the Wii has twice as many sales as the XBOX360 or PS3, because stupid retards from America think that graphics don't matter. Well, they do. Imagine playing a game of Halo or CoD where you can't see the color of some person! How would you know if they are your ally or not?! It's not like you are color blind, it's because the graphics contribute so much to a game. They really do.

 

Things like the Nintendo 64 were only popular because there was no other game system around at the time. I laugh at all Nintendo fanboys because they are the idiots who think graphics don't matter. Well, the XBOX360 can handle graphics up to 1080i, and the PS3 up to 1080p! That's a lot. Some people think graphics don't make a difference. Imagine how much better games would be if graphics were enhanced. Are you dumb or something? Is your teacher stupid or something? Graphics are the most important elements of video games. Gameplay is worthless and storyline is crap. IT IS ALL GRAPHICS.

---

 

Hoof. Heff. Did I... did I have insanity? (Vague reference ftw.)

 

That is what a generic PS3 or XBOX360 fanboy would sound like, and note that I don't use the term fanboy lightly. I mean like comparable to "kill the gays Christian" type of fanboy. Not your generic "Hi I like Nintendo." Not that at all. I mean "DIE NINTENDO YOU STUPID CRAP!" Yeah, like that.

 

Graphics are probably the least important part of any video game, although they don't hurt.

[PrometheusMFD]

*CoughcoughSNEScoughcough*

[Alex DeLarge]

*CoughcoughSNEScoughcough*

 

indeed

[Eury]

 

 

Hoof. Heff. Did I... did I have insanity? (Vague reference ftw.)

 

 

 

I got the reference, do I win? :D

 

All I have to say to the topic is, Pokemon R/B/Y/G/S/C. Best games ever, bad graphics.

[GraveHorizon]

All I have to say to the topic is' date=' Pokemon R/B/Y/G/S/C. Best games ever, [s']bad[/s] terrible graphics.

 

At least for the first few.

 

I think it's a combination of the graphics and control that make a game more playable, while the gameplay itself determines whether it's actually fun to play. For example, Tetris came out decades ago, and the core gameplay is almost exactly the same. If you want a fun Tetris experience, you can play the first one or the last one and it'll be pretty much identical. The only difference is if you want to look at something pretty while it's happening.

 

. I'd rather play Left 4 Dead on the Atari than Pong on the PS3.

[PrometheusMFD]

Actually, the gameboy had great graphics for its time, and a handheld of that size. Pokemon pushed that limit

[Dark]

Pong was fun. <___<

 

Pong, to me, was the most simplistic game ever. And it was fun. Because the computer was a dick.

[GraveHorizon]

Actually' date=' the gameboy had great graphics for its time, and a handheld of that size. Pokemon pushed that limit

[/quote']

 

That's part of the issue. Once newer, smoother, better looking graphics show up, people just take that as being "better" than what came before. A lot of games are have cutting edge graphics in their time, then become dwarfed in visual comparison to the more recent shinier games. Graphics will always keep getting better, but we need to make sure the gameplay will match that. I read an article in Game Informer talking about how NBA games keep looking more and more realistic, with all the sweat drops and reflections and whatnot, but the game mechanics were stale and unchanged, very disconnected from what's supposed to be a basketball simulation. Developers doing stuff like that push the idea that graphics matter the most. Outright lies. Maybe if all games had the same level of visual quality we could better tell the difference between good games and mediocre ones. But then how would Sony and Microsoft convince people that their games were superior?

 

And Pong is fun for about 5 minutes. Maybe if they added lasers...

[Hydra of Ages]

I think this all started around the time when "Realism" became the name of the game. I have no idea why people decided they wanted their escapism to be realistic. Even more worryingly, people have begun to equate Realistic = Good Graphics.

 

I actually prefer a stylistic game. I want my graphics to be good, but uhm, that doesn't mean I want them to be realistic. It's much like art. Many of the world's greatest painters didn't aim to capture the literal look of the world, but used various techniques to give insights into the mind of the artist as they observe what they're painting. In the same way, I think how a game looks should give insight about what the game is actually about.

 

Take Wind Waker for example. It had a unique style of cell-shading, one that I can't really describe as anything other than 'Optimistic Pirate'. It really gave a sense of freedom and exploration. Was it realistic in the slightest? No. Were the graphics GOOD? Hell yes.

 

In that way, I believe that Graphics ARE an important element of the game, very similar to the roll the plot players. I don't think any particular element of the game is most important, it has to do with how well the three factors are woven together and integrated with eachother.

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

Well, not all video games are escapism, just like not all books or movies are escapism. I don't think we'd call 1984 or Neon Genesis Evangelion escapism, but they count.

 

Still, I don't really care one way or the other, as is implied by my liking Mountain of Faith and FFXIII equally. Graphics are nice, but they really don't matter.

[TAG]

I like a nice-looking game (TF2, MadWorld, A Boy and His Blob), but I consider graphics to be the least important aspect of a video games. I dunno, bad graphics just aren't as much as a bother to me. I'll complain on occasion when it comes to specifics, but as a whole, I rarely complain about graphics.

[Clair]

I still love retro games. Back then, nobody cared about how good the game looked. D:

 

You didn't hear...

 

"Hey, Jim! Come on over and play some Smash TV!"

 

"... Um, I'll pass. The character sprites have no eyebrows. Plus, I can't even tell what fabric Player 2's coat is made out of. Unrealistic, man."

[Saturn of Elemia]

Graphics (as stated by practically everybody in this thread so far) are the least important element. You can polish a turd to make it look really pretty, but it's still a turd no matter how you look at it (and I really don't feel like looking at a high-res 3D turd).

 

I would rather play an old NES game than the majority of the newer games nowadays, personally.

[Flame Dragon]

What I don't get is that people act like the Wii's graphics are crap. Their not. I've always found them to be as good as PS2, and when people know what their doing, even better. Those graphics were amazing back when the PS2 came out and while we do have better now it doesn't make them bad. Over all, the Wii has good graphics, just not as good as the 360 and PS3.

[Luis2]

I found it stupid to not play a game just because of the graphics. I mean an old game could be better than the new game because of the gameplay.

[^l~Soul~l^]

Graphics (as stated by practically everybody in this thread so far) are the least important element. You can polish a turd to make it look really pretty' date=' but it's still a turd no matter how you look at it (and I really don't feel like looking at a high-res 3D turd).

 

I would rather play an old NES game than the majority of the newer games nowadays, personally.

[/quote']when i read that i almost peed my pants!

[Umbra]

Graphics are important, but only to an extent. (Fair warning: It's 7:30 AM here, so I don't really feel like using any big words in this post.) The graphics only need to be what the players want them to be. I don't expect fully realistic graphics in a puzzle game for instance, but I might do in an action game or an RPG. I'm not saying perfect graphics, but at least being able to look at without cringing. Some games want to do cel-shading, that's fine by me as long as it's not a major selling point.

 

I'm saying that appearance matters. Video games are a visual experience as much as they are a mental, even more so in non-RPGs. If the game looks bad, in a world where the standard for "good" is set by each game or at least by the genre on that console, chances are I'm not going to play it. Just because you're a gamer it doesn't mean you have to swallow every brownish-gray FPS or dull and color-exploding platform game that comes your way under the pretext that IT'S A GAME YOU LIKE GAMES NOW PLAY IT.

[GraveHorizon]

Graphics are just an expression of the game. Realistic graphics serve to make the experience more realistic and immersive, while simple or stylized graphics can better highlight the gameplay while not being so distracting.

 

For a game like Portal, I enjoy the level of detail of the blood-written messages on the walls. It gives the game a lot of atmosphere. But that isn't always necessary to enjoy every game. There's a flash game I played a while ago, called Judith (by Terry Cavanagh and Stephen Lavelle). The sound is great, but the visuals might make you wonder if it's really any good.

 

Here's a shot of it. Beautiful, isn't it? I suggest anyone who only likes games with good graphics give it a try.

[Yang Xiao-Long]

I've always considered graphics the icing on the cake. It's always good to have games look good (since most people judge by appearance anyway), but the classics, which had terrible graphics, were called classics because they were fun to play, and they had that "personality", if you will.

 

Sure, the storyline and content are everything; it's just that it doesn't hurt to have a game look good every now and then.

[GraveHorizon]

And just think, the cutting edge graphics of today are going to look like crap in the future.

[Poseidon©]

What I don't get is that people act like the Wii's graphics are crap. Their not. I've always found them to be as good as PS2' date=' and when people know what their doing, even better. Those graphics were amazing back when the PS2 came out and while we do have better now it doesn't make them bad. Over all, the Wii has good graphics, just not as good as the 360 and PS3.

[/quote']

 

Exactly. Look at The Conduit, and The Conduit 2.

 

Easily one, if not, the best graphics on the Wii.

 

The developers just need to TRY, to get it right.

[OmegaWave]

*CoughcoughSNEScoughcough*

 

indeed

 

indeed indeed Best system in history IMO

 

I couldn't give a flying sheet about Graphics these days. Game developers have completely lost the true purpose of a video game. TO BE FUN! If we wanted to see something pretty, we'd watch Porn. (And we do). I'm glad to see that Nintendo is bring back the titles that made it great today. Nintendo and all related partners get it. Everyone else doesn't.

 

The next time I hear someone say that Graphics are the best part of a game, i'm gonna punch them in the face, strangle them, tear out their eye balls, chop their tounge off, and (If it's a boy) slam him so hard in the balls with a sledge hammer that his testicles will shoot out of his mouth.

[Alex DeLarge]

One other thing you may want to discuss on this thread is another row we had before the argument mentioned in the first post, which is better, world cup or nintendo. I can't be bothered with the actual event and will instead let you decide for yourself.

[Dark]

...that doesn't make any sense. You are comparing a bunch of soccer games to a game console (or a game company).

 

I don't like soccer. :D