|
Post by elchevalier on Jul 25, 2011 21:21:53 GMT -5
Has anyone ever avoided buying, or even playing a game, because of the graphics? Now, debates about graphics are not new, this has been going around ever since the 8 bit and 16 bit era. I remember the endless debates between which console had the best graphics: snes or genesis, psx or n64, ps2 or xbox. The thing is, seems to me that graphics are even more an issue these days for many. The vg press and the "core" gamers bitch about this all the time, yet the best selling console of this generation has no HD whatsoever.
So, has the graphic whoreness grown, or are we in the same level as always?
|
|
|
Post by feilong80 on Jul 26, 2011 10:29:44 GMT -5
I definitely bought Fight Night Round 3 for the graphics. Last game I remembered buying where the visuals were 90% of the reasons why I bought it. Fortunately, there was a good boxing game in there too (I like the Fight Night games, though Round 2 was the best).
|
|
|
Post by ECM on Jul 26, 2011 11:13:33 GMT -5
I think I did this a lot as kid due to the dearth of available information so all you had to really go on was your friend's at school saying it had awwwwwesome/shitty graphics or via the back of the box (I'm talking 2600/NES/C64 days in the early-to-mid '80s).
Since then, the only time I can think where I was explicitly sold on a game due to visuals was Toshinden on PSX (which I actually imported for a princely sum, so I was *really* sold). It didn't disappoint but, of course, has aged like a crack-addicted stripper in the interim. (Funny how that works: games like Alisia Dragoon still look graphically solid/good, but things like Toshinden and a huge, huge, huuuuge amount of formerly impressive PS/SS/N64/3Dfx games look terrible, innit?)
As far as avoiding a game w/ crappy graphics? Not that I recall but, again, maybe in the broad 8-bit age that happened? Maybe? The problem is, then, the arcades were lightyears beyond home anything so the expectations were always fairly in check about what to expect on 8-bit machines. You simply weren't going to get Altered Beast (haha! Remember when that had awesome graphics!) at home, so you would settle for pretty much anything after that.
(And I'm Mr.Wii, so I think it's safe to say, no, it's not at all an issue nowadays.)
What I *do* have a huge issue with (and a lot of people put this in the graphics category, though I think it belongs in gameplay) is frame rate: if you have a shitty frame rate then, yes, I will totally skip your game because then, in all likelihood, unless it's done smartly (like Nintendo w/ their 1st party N64 games where they *locked* the frame rate and not the morons at Rare) it really just ruins the gameplay. (See: countless PSX 3D games w/ frame rates that were all over the place.)
|
|
|
Post by kog3100edw on Jul 26, 2011 15:16:00 GMT -5
The only time graphics might come into play for me is if I'm on the fence about buying the game in the first place. Cool visuals could then decide me.
Having said that, graphics ARE important to me, I just don't have a problem applying the contexts of release date and platform to the games I play. So if I'm after a Saturn game I don't already own, I'll look at the visuals relevant to the Saturn and PS1 'era'.
As long as the developer does a reasonable job with the 'equipment at hand' so to speak, then they won't lose me over graphics. If they do a superlative job, that's icing on the cake and can definitely improve the experience.
ECM questioning visuals aging above, I'd have to say generally sprite-based visuals tend to fare A LOT better than polygonal object graphics. Time doesn't erase the 'artwork' aspect that went into drawing or rendering sprites, but as we get higher count polygon figures and more sophisticated ways to skin and shadow them, earlier examples just look worse.
|
|
|
Post by elchevalier on Jul 26, 2011 20:53:24 GMT -5
Call me crazy, but never in my entire gaming life i consider the graphics as an esential part of my buying decisions. Sure, i admired graphics in certain games, and cringe in horror to awful graphics in other games (mostly those early psx/saturn games full of giant polygons) but nothing that would either make or break the deal for me. I still can jam Daytona USA in the saturn with no problem at all, of course, it helps that it plays smoothly, but the graphics, as old as they can be, don't bother me at all.
|
|
|
Post by kog3100edw on Jul 27, 2011 2:40:23 GMT -5
Well, as I said, I'm pretty able at placing the graphics and gameplay in its proper context. The same way I don't look at film special effects from 1940 the same way I'd look at a release this year.
If effects are good, we usually mean 'for their time' in anything older than a really recent film. So games are the same for me. Unrealistic effects never stopped me from watching ANY movie, but it helps enjoymentand appreciation to understand a film's time and place.
I'm a research-heavy buyer too. So usually I've got a mental checklist that has to be met for me to buy a game. Graphics is one of those boxes, sure, but it doesn't hold a ton of weight. It might come into play to break my indecision over a game. It has probably happened a few times. Its pretty rare that I buy a game I'm not positive I'll like, and my track record is pretty good.
|
|