If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I heard some guys talking about video games. They spoke of Black Ops, Modern Warfare 2, Halo: Reach, the usual. I hear stories of people who take one look at a game's graphics and go "This game sucks, the graphics are horrible."
That got me thinking. Why are graphics so important to them, anyway? Isn't the actual gameplay the most important thing? Why, I remember playing an old game called Battlezone on my dad's old computer. That game was so awesome, because it was essentially a tank game, an FPS, and an RTS rolled into one glorious enchilada. You could order your "town center" called a "Recycler" to a gas geyser on the many planets. It would set up all it's gadgets, and then you'd tell it to make stuff.
In 1998, a game called Die by the Sword came out. I recently discovered this game, and I'm having a blast! They have this system called "VSIM", where instead of pressing button combinations to swing your sword different ways, you just move your mouse! The sword reacts to things realistically, severing body parts and clashing with the enemy weapons. The character makes insanely hilarious and "colorful" comments based on what's happening.
What I'm trying to say here, is that graphics don't mean everything! Think about the processing power of the average 1998 computer. Not too much. This is back when 50 Mb was considered a lot. So, instead of pumping dollars into graphics that wouldn't impress so much anyways, the developers of these games spent most all of their time on gameplay. So, you get these innovative masterpieces that are truly unique.
Developers nowadays seem to care too much about graphics. You always hear about the "latest in graphics technology", or the "cutting edge of graphical development." Never about revolutionary gameplay or innovative design choices.
Developers nowadays
spend most of their working on
Graphics because they are the most important
now people want games that are look like you play
in real life
also high Graphics make the game interesting
3D games, and TV screens are one good example of
the importance of Graphics
I don't want realistic looking games, I want fun games. Sure, nice graphics are all well and good, but these are not the foundations of a house, they are the garden gnome and wallpaper.
Having 3 dimensions to a game is more of a gameplay expansion than a graphics improvement. Hell, most games from the first 3D consoles looked worse than their 2D contemporaries, like the games on the Atari Jaguar. Take Half-Life for example. All the security guards and scientists looked alike, but it was a really good game, because the developers worked more on the actual game, rather than the fluffy graphics.
Having 3 dimensions also enabled the modern FPS. Side-scrolling shooter games, like Contra or Lifeforce, were giving way to games like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. Now, the character models in these games were still 2D sprites, but the gameplay itself was very basically 3D.
TV Screens are not related to the importance of graphics, as these are used for other things than video games. They might increase the resolution, which is good, but not that important.
I'm not saying that good graphics are completely unnecessary though. Far from it! Good graphics can enhance the gaming experience, but that's all they do. They don't make the game, but they do improve it a little. Keep in mind, though, that 2D doesn't necessarily mean low tech. There are a lot of new 2D animation techniques, as evidenced by the new cartoons on Cartoon Network, and 2D cartoons and games look better than ever.
TL;DR: A game that makes you think is better than a game that is the most beautiful game on earth.
I think these days the importance is pretty much equal and thats the way games and gaming has become over time. I believe in the past graphics never mattered so much but to continue impressing people they will try hard at both, both combined makes for a wonderful game and more people buying it which is what they want of course.
I dont think graphics are necessary to enjoy a game but their market has changed as well as their markets expectancies, they all want both graphics and great gameplay.
Graphics don;t make the best selling games. I can say now that the best selling game right now is using a 6 year old graphics engine. If a game is going to be realistic, then I prefer having an accurate physics engine over anything which is why I love Source games (TF2, Half Life 2 etc.) and even then, that engine is way past it;s sell by date by now (Source2.0 and Half Life 3 anyone? ^>^)
The most used graphics engines are always upgrading and being tweaked so it's natural progression that the graphics generally improve over the years, it doesn't mean that the games developed are anything special.
Today's Toppers
Today's Games
I was thinking of downloading it, but after a few youtube videos..I'm certainly getting it 
